Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Great Western Railway (Docks) (Certified Bill).

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Milford Haven Urban District Council (Water) Bill (Certified Bill),

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, and agreed to.

ROCHDALE CORPORATION (NO. 1) BILL
(Certified Bill),

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Mr. SMITHERS: Are we allowed to ask for any information as to these Lords Amendments, or as to what these Bills are?

Mr. SPEAKER: That might lead to taking objection to the consideration of the Amendments. If objection is taken, they cannot be taken at this time.
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, and agreed to.

Chester Water Bill (Certified Bill),

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, and agreed to.

Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) Water Order Confirmation Bill. [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEXHAM) BILL,

"to confirm a, Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Hexham," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

SAFEGUARDING DUTIES (CUTLERY INDUSTRY).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: I beg to present a Petition signed by 6,000 employers and workpeople engaged in the cutlery industry, and by the Master Cutler of Sheffield, the President of the Sheffield Cutlery Manufacturers' Association, the Secretary of the Sheffield United Cutlery Council, and representatives of the trade unions in the cutlery trade, Showing that the continuance of the Safeguarding Duty on imported cutlery on and after the 22nd December, 1930, for a further period of five years, is of the utmost importance to the industry in which the petitioners are engaged, inasmuch as the existing duty has greatly benefited the trade and is regarded as vital to its welfare; that it has encouraged a new branch of the cutlery trade, namely, the manufacture of safety razor blades; that it has relieved unemployment; and that, if the duty is removed, the trade and industry is certain to suffer very grievously; and praying, therefore, that the said Safeguarding Duty on imported cutlery may be renewed for the said period of five years.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is it customary, when a petition is presented in this House, that arguments should be adduced regarding a very serious controversial point?

Mr. SPEAKER: Petitioners can petition as they like, provided that the Petition is in order.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking if it is in order.

Mr. SPEAKER: There appears to be nothing out of order in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SOUTHWARK (TRANSFERRED WORKERS).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has any records and can state if any of the persons transferred to the Borough of Southwark under the Industrial Transference Scheme have returned to their homes on account of not being employed or through any other reason; and will she give particulars?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Detailed records are not kept of the industrial history of men subsequent to transfer. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to supply the information required by my hon. Friend.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Lady say whether the fares of these men are paid when they are transferred?

Miss BONDFIELD: It depends upon circumstances.

LEEDS (EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION).

Major MILNER: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware of the complaints regarding the accommodation at the Employment Exchanges in Leeds and their inconvenient distribution; whether the matter is having attention as being one of urgency; and how soon an alteration may he anticipated?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware of the unsuitability of the accommodation at the Leeds Employment Exchanges. The provision of new premises is regarded as a matter of urgency, but I am not yet able to say how soon they can be provided.

STATISTICS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed in Hull on the 2nd April, 1930; and the number on the corresponding date last year?

Captain RONALD HENDERSON: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the increase or decrease in the number of persons unemployed in the Bolton district for last week as compared with the same week of last year?

Captain BOURNE: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the increase or decrease in
the number of persons unemployed in the Blackburn district for last week as compared with the same week of last year?

Marquess of HARTINGTON: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the increase or decrease in the number of persons unemployed in the Sheffield district for last week as compared with the same week of last year?

Mr. SMITHERS: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour the increase or decrease in the number of persons unemployed in the Manchester district for last meek as compared with the same week of last year?

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour the increase or decrease in the number of persons unemployed in the Bradford district for last week as compared with the same week of last year?

Captain EDEN: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the city of Coventry at the most recent date for which figures are available and the number at the corresponding date last year?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 31st March, 1930, there were 16,716 persons on the registers of the Hull Employment Exchange, as compared with 13,114 at 25th March, 1929.
Similar information with regard to other areas is asked for in Questions Nos. 9, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 21, and, as they involve a series of figures, I propose, if I may, to circulate the replies to them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: In view of the very serious increase of the unemployment figures in Hull, will the right hon. Lady use her influence with the Lord Privy Seal to grant a somewhat more generous contribution towards the schemes which have been put forward by those localities?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will certainly pass on that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Captain EDEN: Do the figures for which I ask in my question No. 22 show an increase, and, if so, of how much?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, in each case they show an increase.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the answer as it relates to Question No. 12, which refers to the Sheffield district, did not the petition which was presented just now show that there was less unemployment in that district?

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the main reasons for the increased unemployment in all these districts is the presence of a Socialist Government in this country?

Following are the replies:

9.—At 31st March, 1930, the number of persons on the registers of the Bolton Employment Exchange showed an increase of 8,742 as compared with 25th March, 1929.

11.—At 31st March, 1930, the number of persons on the registers of the Blackburn Employment Exchange showed an increase of 12,689 as compared with 25th March, 1929.

12.—At 31st March; 1930, the number of persons on the registers of the Sheffield and Attercliffe Employment Exchanges showed an increase of 10,450 as compared with 25th March, 1929.

17.—At 31st March, 1930, the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Manchester area showed an increase of 16,258 as compared with 25th March, 1929.

18.—At 31st March, 1930, the number of persons on the registers of the Bradford Employment Exchange showed an increase of 9,764 as compared with 25th March, 1929.

22.—At 31st March, 1930, there were 5,616 persons on the registers of the Coventry Employment Exchange, as compared with 1,761 on 25th March, 1929.

Sir B. FALLE: I beg to ask the right hon. Lady question number 18.

Miss BONDFIELD: That question was answered in the group.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: On a point of Order. ft is usual, when there is a mass of figures in reply to one question, for the Minister to say that they will be circulated. In this case they are separate, and there is only one figure in each case. I submit that the right hon. Lady ought to have replied to each question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Lady may reply to questions in the way she thinks fit; it is not for me to dictate to her in that matter.

Sir B. FALLE: I did not understand that my question was included, and I have had no answer.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The Minister usually says, "With the consent of the hon. Member, I will answer so-and-so." Supposing that the hon. Member does not give his consent and wishes to have a separate answer, is he not entitled to his rights?

Mr. SPEAKER: In that case, if the hon. Member is not satisfied, he can put the question down again.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour what number of intimations of vacancies have been received at Employment Exchanges in the present year; and what number have been filled by persons sent on from the Exchanges?

Miss BONDFIELD: During the 13 weeks ended 31st March, 1930, 452,428 vacancies were notified to, and 401,991 were filled by, Employment Exchanges in Great Britain.

EXCHANGE STAFFS.

Mr. KINLEY: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the staffs of the Employment Exchanges have been augmented during the past three months; and to what extent?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of staff at Employment Exchanges necessarily fluctuates with the number on the registers, and has increased from 10,325 on the 30th December, 1929, to 11,749 on the 31st March. 1930.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is this the only increase in employment that the present Government have made?

INSURANCE (STATISTICS).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour if there are any statistics available to show the net gain or loss to individual industries arising from unemployment insurance?

Miss BONDFIELD: Precise figures are not available, but rough estimates, subject to a wide margin of error, can be
made for large groups of industries showing the relative amounts of contributions paid and benefits drawn. Those industries in which the contributions exceeded the benefits drawn have, of course, had the advantage of cover for the risk of heavy unemployment from which, in the light of past experience, no industry can safely regard itself as exempt. It is important to note that, for the purpose of such estimate, the unemployed have to be allocated, broadly speaking, to the industry in which they were last employed. If this allocation were to be made the basis of separate financial responsibility it would certainly be contested in many instances, particuarly in the case of those who have been unemployed for long periods.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Could the Minister furnish, perhaps in a, White Paper or return, particulars showing in these broad categories for different periods what the results have been in regard either to individual industries or groups or industries, according to the categories which may be most convenient?

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall be glad to do so. I am working towards that end. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question again later; I do not think that I am in a position to answer it at once.

TRAINING CENTRES, SOUTH-WEST NORFOLK.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps, if any, are under consideration to utilise the training centres situate in South-West Norfolk for the purpose of developing land settlement and development schemes here in the Home country?

Miss BONDFIELD: Consideration is being given to the use which can be made of the centres to which my hon. Friend refers in so far as they may not be required for training men for employment on the land in the Dominions, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the Minister sympathetically consider proposals with regard to this point before considering any further statement in regard to these centres?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am giving the closest consideration to these training centres.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS (SLOUGH).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that, apart from the men attending the Slough training centre, the number of adult males unemployed in Slough and district has increased by over five times in the last nine months, she will discontinue transfers to this district?

Miss BONDFIELD: Although there has been an increase in the unemployment in this district, the percentage of men unemployed in March was not more than about 7 per cent. and the average over the past 12 months, which is the basis normally adopted in administering the transfer policy, was below 4 per cent. I will keep a careful watch on the position, but at present I do not think this district should be excluded from the transfer arrangements.

Sir A. KNOX: In view of the fact that the district of Slough has absorbed no fewer than a thousand men in the last few months in transfers from depressed areas, will the right hon. Lady give it a rest and allow the local unemployed to be absorbed?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am watching that, but Slough is a new industrial district—a new town growing up.

Sir A. KNOX: Will fie right hon. Lady remember that, after all, Slough now has worse unemployment lit than it has ever had?

Miss BONDFIELD: The aspect will be carefully watched.

RECIPIENTS OF BENEFIT (EMPLOYMENT).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 15 and 16.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether, in view of the steady increase in unemployment, she will consider the giving of powers to local authorities to employ on works of public utility which would not be otherwise undertaken persons on the unemployed register and pay them the difference between unemployment pay and their normal wages;
(2) whether she has studied the system of unemployment insurance relief in Germany where there is a strict line of de-
marcation between insurance benefit and welfare relief; whether she is aware that local authorities are responsible for this welfare relief, and that they supplement this welfare relief by the provision of work upon undertakings of common utility, paying the difference between the welfare relief and the standard rate for navvy labour, and that six months of this welfare employment is recognised as re-qualifying for insurance benefit; and whether, in view of the many advantages of this system, she will consider its application on similar lines in this country?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have under consideration the German scheme with a view to seeing whether it has any lessons for us. The question of using unemployment benefit in part-paying of the wages of persons in employment has been most carefully considered on many occasions in the past, but there are very serious difficulties and dangers inherent in proposals of this kind, and these have hitherto been thought to be conclusive against their adoption. I would add that it is the policy of the present Government to promote, with the aid of State grants, useful works of economic development on which the unemployed can be engaged. The hon. and gallant Member will find an account of those works in the White Paper recently issued by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is a much greater chance of getting these men employed under some such scheme as this, which will help municipalities to get work of value done?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am rather endeavouring to press that side.

Mr. MILLS: Has the right hon. Lady considered the practice that obtains in the German Employment Exchanges of taking on the repair of boots and clothing?

GRANT-AIDED SCHEMES (SINGLE MEN).

Mr. TINKER: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been drawn to the out-of-work single man with a dependent mother and his position in respect of grant-aided schemes; and what steps she intends to take to alter the existing Regulations so that they may be
placed in a different category with a better opportunity of getting work on such schemes?

Miss BONDFIELD: Subject to industrial suitability, single men with a dependent mother already share the general preference accorded to men, married or single, with dependants, for engagement on State-aided works in relief of unemployment, but I am afraid they must come lower in the list than men with a larger number of dependants.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Lady make that known to the Exchanges?

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, BETHNAL GREEN.

Major NATHAN: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that there is no Employment Exchange within the area of the borough of Bethnal Green; and whether, in view of the fact that unemployment in Bethnal Green has increased during the past 10 months by approximately 50 per cent., she will take steps to establish an Exployment Exchange in Bethnal Green?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am having inquiry made in this matter and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Shoreditch would be glad if Bethnal Green could be separated from it?

JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT BUREAU, DEVONPORT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has now discussed with the Plymouth local education authority the transfer of the Juvenile Employment Bureau at Devon-port to Plymouth; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused and the anticipated increase of administrative work owing to juveniles becoming insurable on attaining the age of 15 years, the decision will be altered and the Juvenile Employment Bureau be retained in Devonport?

Miss BONDFIELD: After consultation with the local education authority at Plymouth, I have agreed to their proposal to close the Juvenile Employment Bureau at Devonport and to centralise the services connected with juvenile employment at the Bureau in Plymouth for an experi-
mental period of six months. The authority do not anticipate that this will cause any serious inconvenience to boys and girls living in Devonport, especially as the junior instruction centres for unemployed juveniles, both in Devonport and Plymouth are situated in Plymouth. I have, however, asked the education authority to review the situation at the end of six months in the light of experience gained, in order to make sure that their anticipations have, in fact, been realised.

SALARIED WORKERS (HOURS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the British Government intends to support the proposal for an international convention on the hours of salaried workers?

Mr. BROCKWAY: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether a reply has been sent on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the questionnaire of the International Labour Office regarding a convention limiting the hours of labour of salaried employés; and, if so, whether the Government has declared itself in favour of or in opposition to such a convention?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer to the detailed reply on this subject given yesterday to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander), of which I am sending a copy to the right hon. Member and to my hon. Friend.

CINEMAS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will have inquiries made into the hours, wages and working conditions generally of employés engaged in cinemas in London and the provinces?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will give consideration to the possibility of making an inquiry such as my hon. Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. HOLLINS: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the date on which he
intends to introduce legislation to amend the Various Industries (Silicosis) Order; and whether it is his intention to include, within the amending Order, provision for the payment of compensation for partial incapacity due to silicosis?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): Amendment of the Various Industries (Silicosis) Order to include cases of partial incapacity is dependent on the passage of the Bill which she Government have introduced to amend the provisions of the Act which relate to medical arrangements for examination and diagnosis. The Bill has already been read a Second time in the other House, and it is my intention, as soon as it has passed, to take up the question of the amendment of the Order.

FIBROSIS.

Mr. MORLEY: 40.
asked the Home Secretary what further steps have been taken to schedule the disease of fibrosis of the lungs under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Mr. CLYNES: As I stated in reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend on the 30th January last, this is a big question on which much further research is necessary, and at my request the Medical Research Council have set up an expert Committee to institute and co-ordinate research into the subject. This Committee is already at work and will, I feel sure, proceed as expeditiously as the nature of the task permits, but I am afraid that no early results are to be expected. I may add that I am writing to my hon. Friend a letter explaining the position more fully than is possible within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.

CALCUTTA SWEEPSTAKE.

Mr. DAY: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that numbers of tickets for the Calcutta Sweepstake on the Derby are being procured for the public through various sources; is he prepared to instruct the Metropolitan Police to take action in the matter; and will he give the House particulars?

Mr. CLYNES: I have seen various statements in the Press. I cannot say beforehand what action is being taken
with regard to a particular lottery. I can only say that, if facts come to the notice of the authorities, action, so far as I am concerned, will be on the lines indicated in the answer I gave on 20th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Dukes).

Mr. DAY: Does that apply to the numbers of tickets as well as to the tickets themselves?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is there any objection whatever to people buying tickets in the Calcutta Sweep?

Mr. CLYNES: The objection has been stated in a previous long answer.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do we understand that it is illegal for members of the public to buy tickets in the Calcutta Sweep?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, and it is for that reason that I announced what the law was.

LITERARY PUBLICATIONS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. DAY: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the titles and the number of literary publications which he has prohibited from circulation in Great Britain for the two years ended to the last convenient date; and whether he will consider appointing a Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole subject of literary censorship as it at present exists?

Mr. CLYNES: During the two years ending 31st March, 1930, five books and 17 periodicals have on account of their obscene or indecent character been prohibited from circulation in this country by means of a warrant addressed by me or by my predecessor to the Postmaster-General. I do not think it would be in the public interest to give their names. As regards the last part of the question, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. DAY: In that five, are there also included the publications prohibited by the Customs authorities under the Inland Revenue Regulations?

Mr. CLYNES: The whole of the publications that are prohibited, as far as I know, are included.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Is it a fact that the hon. Member wanted to read these books?

Mr. HORRABIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reconsider the censorship on certain books banned in this country which have since been published and circulated, apparently without any ill-effects, in America?

Mr. CLYNES: I will, of course, consider any representations that are made to me.

WOMEN POLICE.

Captain EUAN WALLACE: 31.
asked the Home Secretary how many members of the women police force in the metropolitan area are habitually employed on duty in plain clothes; and whether, in such cases, they are authorised to arrest suspects without the assistance of a uniformed constable?

Mr. CLYNES: Two women police officers are employed in plain clothes permanently, and others on occasions when deemed desirable. When so employed, they are authorised to arrest suspects without the assistance of a uniformed officer, but in using their power of arrest they are expected to exercise discretion and to obtain the assistance of a male officer if thought necessary or desirable.

Captain WALLACE: 32.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the recent arrest of a man suspected of street bookmaking by two members of the women police force in plain clothes and to his conviction at Bow Street on 3rd April for assult whilst endeavouring to escape; and whether he will give instructions that in future women police in plain clothes shall not be called on to perform a duty which puts an unfair strain upon the man arrested and which may become dangerous to themselves?

Mr. CLYNES: I have seen a report on the incident referred to. The police women were employed with a male constable and it was not anticipated that they would have any occasion to make an arrest. It is impossible, however police women are employed, to avoid their having to act in unexpected con-
tingencies, with perhaps some risk to themselves. The police women acted quite properly in the case in question.

Captain WALLACE: Can we have some assurance that women police will not be employed on these duties, except in case of very urgent necessity?

Mr. CLYNES: Cases might arise as a matter of urgency, and they cannot be provided for.

Mr. DAY: Do these women police carry a warrant card and show it to the person whom they are attempting to arrest?

Mr. CLYNES: I must ask for notice of that question.

RACECOURSE BETTING ACT.

Sir BASIL PETO: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Betting Control Board is paying a discount or commission to agents to collect bets away from the course for investment with the totalisators under the control of the Board on racecourses; and whether he proposes, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent the continuance of the practice?

Mr. CLYNES: I understand that the Board is paying a commission to certain firms engaged in the betting business on bets placed by them on the course with the Board's totalisator and it is advised that such payment is in order. I do not propose to introduce legislation on the subject.

Sir B. PETO: In view of the decision of the Home Secretary not to take any action in this matter of collecting bets for totalisators all over the country, how does he propose to enforce that part of the Racecourse Betting Act which prohibits betting with young persons under 17 years of age, and how can he control the matter if these bets are taken in all parts of the country?

Mr. CLYNES: The first part of the supplementary question requires me to repeat that I have only announced what the law is. The second part of the question is one of which I should have notice.

Mr. FOOT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the Debates in this House proceeded on the assumption that
it only dealt with betting on the course, and will he again refer to the Act of Parliament and consider if the collecting of bets away from the course is within the terms of the Measure?

Mr. CLYNES: That may be so, but Parliamentary assumption is not always reconcilable with Court decisions.

Mr. FOOT: 42.
asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions which have arisen since the passing of the Racecourse Betting Act in respect of breaches of the prohibition of betting transactions with persons under 17 years of age?

Mr. CLYNES: I regret that at separate figures for prosecutions under Section 4 of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, are not available, and that therefore I cannot furnish the desired information.

Mr. FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this information will be given in the annual report which is many months overdue?

Mr. CLYNES: It may be, but the point is covered in succeeding questions.

Mr. FOOT: 43.
asked the Home Secretary the number of racecourses which have now been approved under Section 3 of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928?

Mr. CLYNES: I would ask the hon. Member to await the Racecourse Betting Control Board's report which I have not yet received, but which I hope to be able to present on the re-assembly of the House after the Easter recess.

STEAMSHIP "HESLEYSIDE" (ARAB FIREMEN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the trouble last week in Hull with unemployed seamen, in which the police had to intervene, owing to the signing on of Arabs as firemen in the steamship "Hesleyside"; if he is aware that the British able seamen in this ship refused to sail with the Arab firemen an d eventually British firemen were engaged; and whether he is satisfied that the existing law regulating the registration of alien Arab seamen is being observed?

Mr. CLYNES: I have obtained a police report of the incident referred to. From it I understand that there was no disturbance calling for police intervention. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was only the good temper and good behaviour of the men which avoided a disturbance, and, with regard to the last part of the question, will he inquire into the very successful system in force at Antwerp with regard to registration of these men which prevents trouble?

BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (BIRCHING).

Mr. BENSON: 35.
asked the Home Secretary who is the final authority to sanction birching in Borstal institutions?

Mr. CLYNES: The Home Secretary. Cases are very rare, only one since 1928; and when I replied to my hon. Friend's supplementary question on 31st March I was under the impression that such an order would not require my confirmation.

RUSSIAN SUBJECTS (RECALL).

Sir A. POWNALL: 36.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an order issued by the Soviet Consul-General in London to a number of Russian subjects domiciled here ordering them to return to Moscow, where they are liable to execution; and what action he proposes to take with regard to their continued residence in this country?

Mr. CLYNES: I have only seen newspaper reports; no representations have reached me from any of the persons who are supposed to be concerned. As the House knows I am now engaged in inquiring into the position of certain former employés of Soviet organisations in this country, and I have no doubt that all relevant considerations will come to light in the course of those inquiries.

Sir A. POWNALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was also in the "Daily Herald" yesterday morning, and in view—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

TRANSPORT (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. DUKES: 39.
asked the Home Secretary the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury which were caused by vehicles and horses in the streets and public places of Great Britain during the year 1929, together with the number of persons killed or injured in these accidents?

Mr. CLYNES: As the answer contains a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In 1929 there were in Great Britain 151,801 such accidents, 6,505 of which were fatal and 145,296 non-fatal; 6,696 persons were killed and 170,889 persons were injured. Of the total number of accidents, 5,830 fatal and 116,933 non-fatal accidents were attributable to mechanically propelled vehicles (including 108 fatal and 5,797 non-fatal accidents attributable to electric tramcars and trolley omnibuses), 177 fatal and 4,307 non-fatal accidents to horse-drawn vehicles and horses, and 498 fatal and 24,326 non-fatal accidents to pedal cycles.

SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL (WESTON-SUPER-MARE).

Lord ERSKINE: 41.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, although the town of Weston-super-Mare pays one-seventh of the total county rates, it has only three elected county councillors out of a total of over 60; and whether in these circumstances, any steps will be taken to secure a redistribution of county council seats in Somerset?

Mr. CLYNES: The question of redistribution will come up for consideration under Section 50 of the Local Government Act, 1929, which requires the county council to review the electoral divisions of the county and to report to me before the 1st January, 1933, as to the alterations which are needed in the boundaries of electoral divisions or in the number of county councillors and electoral divisions. As regards the considerations which have to be taken into account in forming the electoral divisions, I would refer the Noble Lord to Section 51 of the Local Government Act of 1888.

Lord ERSKINE: Does the Home Secretary agree that this town is under-represented?

Mr. CLYNES: To express an opinion would be to take sides.

PLAYING FIELDS (EXEMPTION FROM RATING) BILL.

Sir A. KNOX: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give facilities for the early passing into law of the Playing Fields (Exemption from Rating) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville).

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (PROSECUTIONS).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 46.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has any record of the number of prosecutions of parents for failing to send their children to school during the last three years for which statistics are available; and how many of these cases were due to the objection of the parents to sending a child to an overcrowded school on account of the danger to the health of the child?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I regret that I have no information as to the number of prosecutions of parents in connection with the enforcement of school attendance.

REORGANISATION SCHEMES.

Dr. DAVIES: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Education what action he is taking with those local education authorities who refuse to produce any scheme until they are satisfied that there are reliable indications that the Education (School Attendance) Bill will be placed on the Statute Book?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not considered it necessary to take any special action in these cases.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman, when he moves the Second Reading of his Bill, to
deal with the subject so as to stop local authorities from shirking their responsibilities?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: That does not arise out of the question.

Dr. DAVIES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that his answer to-day will act as a direct encouragement to those authorities who are suspicious to wait until the Bill has been drafted?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: There are very few authorities concerned, awl there are no signs of others following their example.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a definite statement that it is still the intention of the Government to apply this Act in April of next year?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir.

MEDICAL OFFICERS.

Dr. DAVIES: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Education if school medical officers are allowed to communicate direct with the chief medical officer of his Department; and, is so, will he bring this fact to the notice of directors of education in the country?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have already stated, in reply to a previous question, that it is a practice of many years' standing for the Board's chief medical officer to communicate directly with school medical officers regarding questions on which he desires their professional opinion; and it is equally their practice to communicate directly with him on such questions. Both the local authorities and the directors are quite well aware of this practice.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in certain districts in the country directors of education have taken an unreasonable attitude that, these communications should pass through their hands first, and will he call the attention of directors of education to the answer which he has now given?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have no doubt that they will see the answer to the question which the hon. Member has asked.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has any information showing what is the school-leaving age in Canada and South Africa?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The school-leaving age varies from 12 to 16 in the different provinces of Canada, and from 15 to 16 for children of European descent in the different provinces of South Africa. In both cases there are varying provisions as to exemption in special circumstances.

OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. EDE: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education if the contributions of local education authorities to superannuation funds established under the Local Government Officers' Superannuation Act rank for grant when they are made in respect of officers on the administrative staff, school medical officers, school attendance officers, and school caretakers; and, if so, why similar expenditure in respect of supplementary teachers would not similarly rank?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The contributions of local education authorities to superannuation funds established under the Local Government Officers' Superannuation Act, 1922, do not rank for grant, and the second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (DEFAULT).

Dr. FORGAN: 53.
asked the Minister of Health the number of occasions since

Periods.
Number of houses completed during the period under the—
Totals.


Housing, Town Planning etc. Act, 1919.
Housing etc. Act, 1923.
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.


Year 1929
32
64,629*
55,362
120,023


Months of January and February,1930.
—
—*
7,082
7,082


* Assistance under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, is not available for houses not completed by 30th September, 1929.

1st January, 1925, on which, in cases of default by local authorities in the exercise of their housing powers, the Minister has himself exercised the powers necessary for remedying the default?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): None, Sir.

STATISTICS.

Major OWEN: 55.
aked the Minister of Health what is the number of dwelling-houses in England and Wales now in course of erection, or for which contracts have been let, under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, respectively?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No houses are being built under the Housing, etc., Act, 1923. Under the Act of 1924, 26,290 houses were in course of erection on the 1st ultimo in England and Wales and a further 16,528 were included in contracts let in direct labour schemes or had been the subject of a promise of financial assistance through a, local authority, but had not been commenced.

Major OWEN: 56.
asked the Minister of Health the number of dwelling-houses built in England and Wales during 1929 and the number built since 1st January, 1930; and how many in each case were built under the 1923 and the 1924 Housing Acts, respectively?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement shows the desired particulars so far as State assisted houses are concerned.

Returns as to houses erected without State assistance, of a rateable value not exceeding £78 (or £105 in the Metropolitan Police District) are obtained half-yearly only to March and September, respectively. The number of such houses erected during the year ended 30th September last was 71,083.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 67.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the intentions of the Government in relation to the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. I have already indicated that there is no possibility of introducing legislation for the amendment of the Rent Restrictions Acts in the near future.

Sir K. WOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put into a Bill all the undertakings that he has given during the last few months?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Rent Restrictions Act—[Interruption.]

SLUM CLEARANCE, GREENWICH.

Mr. PALMER: 73.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state the slum-clearance areas of Greenwich selected by the local authority?

Mr. GREENWOOD: So far as I am aware five areas have been made the subject of representations by the medical officer of health of this borough. These are known as the Eastney Street, East Street Charlton, Roan Street, Thames Street and Watergate Street areas.

SOUTHWARK.

Mr. ISAACS: 76.
asked the Minister of Health what schemes for the provision of houses have been submitted to the Ministry by the council of the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark since the medical officer of health of that borough reported that in 1927 the number of dwelling houses found not to be in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation was 10,499; Whether any such schemes have been approved by the Minister; and, if so, how many houses are to be demolished, how many people are to be rehoused, and the names of the streets that are included within the proposals?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No scheme for the provision of houses has been submitted
by the Metropolitan Borough Council of Southwark since 1927. As I explained in reply to a recent question, owing to the absence of vacant sites in the borough it is necessary to rely primarily on the provision for new houses made by the county council. That authoity is carrying out a large programme of building which includes a number of schemes for providing housing accommodation in the inner parts of London. The county council have also undertaken schemes for dealing with unhealthy areas in the borough.

TOWN PLANNING.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 77.
asked the Minister of Health if he still considers a further measure of town-planning essential to proper housing development: and whether, and when, he proposes to introduce legislation for the purposes?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is still my intention to introduce amending town-planning legislation as soon as opportunity permits.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: is it not essential to introduce this Measure at, the same time as the Bill dealing with slums: otherwise, these developments must go on under the old town-planning Acts on wrong principles. Are we not perpetuating wrong principles?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am glad of the hon. and gallant Member's haste in this matter. If he could assure me that these two Bills would get through the House at the same time, I should be glad to consider the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is not this putting the cart before the horse?

ALSAGER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

Mr. PALMER (for Mr. BOWEN): 51.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses built by the Alsager Urban District Council under State-aided housing schemes since 1920; whether he has received any application or communication from such local authority asking for the endorsement of or affecting any proposed housing scheme; and whether he will urge the council concerned to make adequate provision to meet the needs and requirements of their district?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Sixty-three houses have been built since 1920 with the aid
of subsidies in this district; these houses were all built by private enterprise. I have not received any communication from the council in the matter or any complaint from other sources of a deficiency in the supply of houses in the district.

STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 54.
asked the Minister of Health the number of officials in receipt of salaries or wages from local authorities in proportion to the population of this country; what the proportion is in comparison with the electorate; and whether recent legislation will increase the number during the coming financial year?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member will find certain figures bearing on this subject in the Industry Tables of the 1921 Census, but I have no figures of recent date nor can I express any opinion on the last part of the question.

Sir G. PENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman desirous of emulating Russia as regards the number of officials?

Sir G. PENNY: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of salaried Civil Service officials employed in this country; and what proportion the number bears to the total population?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The returns of Civil Service staffs do not distinguish salaried officers from other civil servants, but the following figures may give the hon. Member the information which he desires. The total number of civilian employés of Government, established and unestablished, whole time and part time (including 121,813 industrial and 179,311 manipulative staff in the arsenals, dockyards, postal service and elsewhere), was 434,368 on the 1st January last. Of this number, after excluding industrial, manipulative, messengerial and other staffs on weekly wages, and part time staffs, it is estimated that there were about 74,000 salaried civil servants, representing 0.17 per cent. Of 44,504,000, the estimated population of Great Britain in 1929, or one to six hundred.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Sir G. PENNY: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in issuing fresh
regulations regarding the administration of national health insurance through the approved societies, he will stipulate that spectacle frames dispensed under the scheme should be of British origin?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will consider what steps I can take to encourage the use of spectacle frames of British origin in connection with ophthalmic benefit under the National Health Insurance Scheme.

Mr. SMITHERS: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the Free Trade principles of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Sir K. WOOD: 68.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can make a statement as to the results of the recent investigation by the Government actuary into the claims experience of a representative group of insured persons; and what action he is taking as a result of such report?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 70 and 71.
asked the Minister of Health (1) whether his attention has been called to the statement by the controller of the Insurance Department of the Ministry of Health to the effect that the growth of sickness claims is out of all proportion to the increase in the burden of unemployment, and that a complete explanation will have to be sought elsewhere; whether such explanation is being sought; and on what lines;
(2) if his attention has been called to the warning of his Controller against malingering on the part of persons drawing benefits under the National Health Insurance scheme; and whether he is satisfied that the standard of administration by every society concerned is sufficiently high to ensure that additional benefits are not sacrificed by laxity?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the position with regard to the increase in expenditure on sickness and disablement benefits, which has been a matter of concern to me for some time past. The Report of the Government Actuary on the subject will be laid on the Table of the House within the next few days. The causes of the increase are under investigation by the Departments concerned, and steps are being taken to deal with any laxity which is brought to light.

Sir K. WOOD: Having regard to the grave anxiety among the approved societies of this country, can the right hon. Gentleman take any steps, for instance, in connection with medical certification under the Act? Is there any possibility of improving that? Can he do anything in that direction?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to ask his staff, when they are inquiring further into this problem, to find out whether there is not a definite decline in the claims for the first quarter of this year, compared with any previous period?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot carry the figures in my head. I have only seen the results of the actuarial investigation in the last six days, and I have not had time to examine them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman takes any action in this matter, will he consult the House, because the insured persons have rights equally with the approved societies?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The approved societies represent the members.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case the approved societies intend, or some of them intend, to deprive the insured persons of certain of their rights?

An HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the figures examined to see how far this benefit is paid to disabled men who ought to come under the Ministry of Pensions?

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is here a definite charge of malingering and—

Mr. SPEAKER: This question, with its supplementaries, is getting like the house that Jack built.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 58.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows registered in this country at the last Census?

Mr. GREENWWOD: At the 1921 Census there were enumerated in England and Wales 1,621,758 females who were described as widowed.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 59.
asked the Minister of Health the number of widows receiving benefit under the Widows', Orphans' and Contributory Pensions Act, 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 16,079 widows have been granted widows' pensions as from 2nd January, 1930, as a result of the provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929. I would, however, remind the hon. and gallant Member that the majority of the widows who will benefit by the provisions of that Act will not become entitled to pensions before 1st July next.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Does not that show that the performances of the Socialist party in this matter are not on all-fours with their promises at the last election?

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is going to be done for all the other widows in need?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will say what we tried to do, and what was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.

BLIND PERSONS (PENSIONS).

Mr. T. SMITH: 60.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the suggestion of the advisory committee on the welfare of the blind that the reduction of the age limit from 50 to 40 years for the receipt of a blind pension would be fully justified; and whether he proposes, in the near future, to take any action on the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, this matter is under consideration in connection with others affecting the welfare of the blind, but I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. KINLEY: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether there are any local authorities whose tuberculosis figures show
little or no decline during the past 10 years; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There are a few areas in England and Wales in which there has been little or no decline in the death rate from tuberculosis during the past 10 years. The factors which may bear upon this matter are receiving special study in my Department.

Mr. SMITHERS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information, and, if not, will he try to get information, as to the extent that these figures have not declined owing to tuberculous milk?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is a matter which is being investigated now.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiries on the subject?

MENTAL TREATMENT.

Mr. McSHANE: 61.
asked the Minister of Health in reference to Burntwood lunatic asylum, what was the number of patients; the number of admissions; the number of deaths during each of the last 10 years; and the number of patients per doctor in that institution?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of statistics in regard to the first three points raised

NUMBER of PATIENTS in INSTITUTIONS for the INSANE and in institutions for mental defectives on 1st January in each of the last ten years.


Year.
In Institutions for the Insane.
In Institutions for mental defectives.


Certified Patients.
Voluntary Boarders.
Total.


1921
…
…
…
…
99,751
261
100,012
11,675


1922
…
…
…
…
103,071
292
103,363
13,394


1923
…
…
…
…
105,821
338
106,159
15,327


1924
…
…
…
…
109,785
510
110,295
17,104


1925
…
…
…
…
111,199
625
111,824
18,735


1926
…
…
…
…
113,542
695
114,237
20,297


1927
…
…
…
…
116,375
796
117,171
21,662


1928
…
…
…
…
118,327
879
119,206
22,812


1929
…
…
…
…
121,333
1,006
122,339
24,207


1930
…
…
…
…
122,902
1,020
123,922
25,697

INSULIN (COST).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state what was the total cost of insulin supplied to
by my hon. Friend. With regard to the last part of the question, I am informed that during 1929 there was one resident medical officer to 310 patients.

Following is the table:

Burntwood Mental Hospital.


Year.
Daily Average Number of Patients Resident.
Number of Admissions.
Number of Deaths.


1920
…
882
250
111


1921
…
890
242
106


1922
…
858
223
86


1923
…
868
226
81


1924
…
902
201
72


1925
…
924
197
71


1926
…
926
194
87


1927
…
919
196
109


1928
…
930
219
114


1929
…
931
207
92

Mr. McSHANE: 62.
asked the Minister of Health what was the total number of patients in institutions for the insane and institutions for mental defectives, respectively, under the Board of Control during each of the last 10 years?

Mr. GREENWOOD: These figures are published in the Annual Reports of the Board of Control, and I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a summary in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the summary:

insured persons for the year ending 31st December, 1929; and what was the price per unit paid?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The total cost for the year was approximately £40,000. The price per 100 units was approximately 2s. 2d. during the first five, and 1s. 8d. during the last seven months of the year

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of insulin is very high and that, although it is manufactured in this country, it means great expense to the State? Will he inquire into the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will give me facts, I shall be very glad to inquire.

VACCINATION (CHILDREN).

Mr. FREEMAN: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the number of children compulsorily vaccinated in 1929, the number for whom exemption was claimed, the number of deaths of children from small-pox, and the number of deaths of children associated with vaccination?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

During the year 1929, 297, 627 certificates of successful primary vaccination of children under 14 years of age, and 287,044 statutory declarations of conscientious objection, were received by vaccination officers in England and Wales. During the same period, among children under 14 years of age, 12 deaths occurred which were classified to small-pox and 16 deaths in which the words "vaccination," "vaccinia" or "post vaccinal encephalitis" appeared in the medical or coroner's certificate. Eleven other cases of children under 14 years of age were brought to the notice of my Department in which death occurred within four weeks of vaccination. In at least eight of these cases there is no reason to think that vaccination contributed in any way to the fatal issue.

MEDICAL RESEARCH.

Dr. FORGAN: 81.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the nature and amount of individual State contributions to medical research in the latest year for which figures are available?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I fear that it is not possible to give the information desired by my hon. Friend. Inclusive grants are paid to a number of institutions such as universities, medical schools of hospitals, she London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases which include medical research among their activities; but it is not possible to distinguish the amounts applied to this purpose. Special mention should, however, be made of the grant of £100,000 last year for the purchase of radium.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If the Financial Secretary does not know the figures, how does he know whether he is giving enough or too much?

IMPORTED FLOUR.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: 52.
(for
asked the Minister of Health if he will briefly indicate the nature of the Regulations relating to the importation of chemically-treated flour?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Daly Regulations are those contained in the Bread Acts of 1822 and 1836, the general effect of which is that no flour may contain any ingredient not being the genuine produce of the corn or grain.

DAIRY CATTLE (SHOWS).

Mr. EVERARD (for Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN): 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations made to him by the Royal Agricultural Society and other similar societies as to the Order he issued prohibiting tuberculin-tested herds from exhibiting at their shows; and whether he is now able to make it possible for these societies to comply with his requirements by segregating the tuberculin-tested cattle at their shows?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I received a deputation from the Royal Agricultural Society and two other societies, and they informed me that they are unable at present to make the requisite arrangements for segregation. The prohibition must therefore stand, so far as the shows of these societies are concerned, hut I am prepared to consider its withdrawal in the case of any shows where satisfactory arrangements can be made.

POOR LAW (TEST WORK).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether the inspectors appointed by him to look into the conditions of test work made personal inspections throughout the country and took evidence of those actually engaged on test work?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to issue an Order laying down that test work shall not consist of stone-breaking or stone-shifting or other similar work?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on the 30th January last.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to issue any order on these lines?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member must understand nothing; he must understand that he repeatedly puts the same Question.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is because of his answers to this question that I do understand nothing?

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember how he called those who sat on that side of the House in the last Government, murderers? How does he describe his own position at the present time?

LONDON RATES (EQUALISATION).

Mr. ISAACS: 75.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received an application from the Woolwich Borough Council asking for an inquiry into the working of the Local Government Act, 1929, and requesting that a Bill be introduced providing for the further equalisation of rates in London; whether he is aware that the Woolwich application is supported by other Metropolitan Borough Councils; and whether he proposes to take any steps to institute such an inquiry and to introduce a Bill as suggested?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in reply to a
written question by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) a statement of the terms of the reply which has been sent to the Woolwich Borough Council. I have received no communication on this matter from other Metropolitan Borough Councils. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich on 24th March.

INCOME TAX CLAIMS DEPARTMENT (WELSH LANGUAGE).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any of the staff of the Income Tax Claims Department in London are conversant with the Welsh language?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No, Sir, I believe not.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Does the hon. Member not consider that it is a very serious hardship on a large number of taxpayers who have to deal with this Department that there is no one conversant with the Welsh language?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member's question asks whether any of the staff of the Income Tax Department in London are conversant with the Welsh language. In those circumstances, I do not think any hardship can arise.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Would the hon. Member be surprised to hear that in the case of Welshmen who have to send claims to London, and who send them in the Welsh language, they are sent back in order for them to be translated into the English language? Is not this a great hardship on many loyal subjects in Wales?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member has any special case of hardship in mind and will send particulars to me, I will have the matter looked into.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: May I ask whether it is really desirable to keep up these barbarous languages?

Major OWEN: Will not the Financial Secretary take steps to secure that in the Department about which complaints are being made a civil servant with sufficient knowledge of the Welsh language is appointed? May I also ask whether
Government Departments will show a little more consideration at any rate to a people who have a perfect right to their own language and have always maintained it, and who have been loyal to the British Crown?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I can only reply, as I did to the hon. Member for Denbighshire (Dr. Morris-Jones), that if the hon. Member can show any special reasons for departing from the present position, I will consider the matter.

Mr. STRAUSS: Is there one single individual who could possibly understand Income Tax law and the Welsh language?

TRADE FACILITIES ACTS.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 83.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the present amount of the Exchequer liability in respect of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts and the loss to date?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The present amount of the Exchequer liability in respect of loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts is approximately £64,789,000. The losses to date amount to approximately £690,000.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can my hon. Friend say whether he anticipates that there will be any very serious loss on the outstanding amount?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot possibly say. I hope there will not be any loss.

Mr. TAYLOR: 84.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount guaranteed by the Treasury under the Trade Facilities Acts, showing separately the amount in respect of loans used to finance the export of British goods and the amount in respect of guarantees for capital expenditure in Great Britain?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The total loans guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts amounted to £72,253,767, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 95 of 1929. In the second part of the question I presume the hon. Member refers to the guarantees given to Empire and foreign undertakings in respect
of loans to be utilised for the purchase of goods manufactured in Great Britain. These guarantees totalled £20,340,906; and the balance of £51,912,86[...] may be taken as applied to capital expenditure in Great Britain.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to provide similar facilities for long-term credits for capital expenditure abroad may be provided so that work may be provided for the factories of this country?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My hon. Friend no doubt remembers that the Trade Facilities Act expired in March, 1927. If he is asking for fresh legislation on the subject he must give me notice of any such question.

Mr. MILLS: Will the Financial Secretary remember the lines and the tone of the Debate last night when hon. Members of all parties were agreed on the necessity of circulating to a11 the great industrialists and chambers of commerce the advisability of making up—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

INCOME TAX.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 85.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what number of Income Tax appeals by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have been made to the House of Lords since January, 1927; in each case whether the judgment has been adverse or in favour; and what costs have been incurred?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The Crown has brought 18 appeals in Inland Revenue cases, and has been successful in five: taxpayers have brought 24 and have been successful in seven. The costs incurred to the end of 1929 were £7,230 6s. 5d. in cases in which the Crown was unsuccessful and £6,818 7s. 11d. in cases in which it was successful.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: In those cases where the applicants have been successful have the expenses been paid by the Treasury?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should require notice on the general question, but the hon. Member will remember that in the particular case referred to in the House it was so.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 86.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what number of forms are sent quarterly to employers to be filled in respecting amounts paid in wages to manual workers in their employment; and what percentage of the total discloses the payment of wages on which Income Tax is payable?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: An issue of forms is made to about 200,000 employers half-yearly, not quarterly, requesting particulars of payments to manual wage-earners in their employment who have received £80 or upwards in the previous half-year. I regret that the information, for which the hon. Member asks in the last part of the question, is not available.

POTATO DISEASE (IMPORTED BAGS).

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: 88.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has made inquiries as to the introduction of second-hand potato bags from America into this country; and whether he is taking steps to prevent the use of such bags spreading disease or introducing harmful insects among English potatoes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is informed that American potato bags are being used in large numbers in this country. He is advised that the risk of the introduction of new potato diseases and insect pests by means of these bags is not appreciable, and he therefore does not feel that the circumstances call for action under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts.

COLLIERY ACCIDENT, HERRINGTON, DURHAM.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 90.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the cause of the accident which occurred at the Lady Beatrice Pit, New Herrington, county Durham, by which one person was killed and three persons were injured?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): As the inquest has not yet been held, and as a preliminary report which I have now received from the Divi-
sional Inspector of Mines indicates that the question of taking legal proceedings may arise, it would not be right for me to make any statement at present.

LONDON ELECTRICITY STATIONS (FUMES).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 91.
asked the Minister of Transport if the experiments being made by the London Power Company with a view to preventing any danger from sulphur fumes coming from the Battersea power station have been completed; and, if so, whether the results have been satisfactory?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Electricity Commissioners inform me that they have not yet received the report of the experiments to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 92.
asked the Minister of Transport if he has received any complaints of offensive fumes emitted from electricity generating stations in the neighbourhood of Regent's Park; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. MORRISON: Complaints with regard to the emission of fumes from the generating stations in the neighbourhood of Regent's Park have been brought to my notice and the Electricity Commissioners have been in communication with the undertakers on the subject. The London Power Company are conducting a series of tests on a full scale plant which is now in operation in connection with one of their chimneys. The Marylebone Council have appointed a committee of experts to advise them in the matter. I do not think any further action on my part is called for at the present time.

BREWING INDUSTRY (AMALGAMATIONS).

Mr. KELLY: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has any reports as to the arrangements in the brewing trade or industry for a scheme of compensation under which, when amalgamations take place at Burton, men and women are compensated for loss of position or worsening of position; and whether she can give particulars?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have no reports on this subject.

Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. Lady make inquiries in order to see why an industry which is so prosperous for its shareholders, does not make provision for the people who are displaced, or whose positions are worsened, by these amalgamations?

FILM STUDIO FIRE, TWICKENHAM.

Mr. CARTER (for Mr. R. S. YOUNG): 30.
asked the Home Secretary if, at any time before the fatal accident at the film studio at Elstree last week, the studio had been visited by any factory inspector; whether all film studios are regularly and frequently inspected; and whether there are enough inspectors adequately to perform these duties?

Mr. CLYNES: Film studios as such, do not come under the Factory Acts—though there may be carried on in the premises incidental processes connected with the production of the films to which the Acts might apply. The premises at Twickenham, to which I presume my hon. Friend refers, were visited before the fire on several occasions, but, as he will be aware, the fire originated in a dressing room connected with the studio which was not subject to inspection under the Acts. In so far as processes are carried on to which the Factory Acts apply, cinematograph film studios are regularly inspected, and they have received a great deal of attention from the inspectors. Still closer supervision, however, will be possible as a result of the scheme recently approved for strengthening the inspectorate, which provides for the creation of a new division centred in London with a substantial addition to the London staff during the present year.

Mr. MILLS: Does the Home Secretary appreciate the fact that the very nature of these studios requires, possibly, the wearing of very inflammable clothing; and whether, having regard to these possibilities, he will bar the use of radiators altogether, and insist upon a central heating system in these studios?

Mr. CLYNES: I think that point is worthy of consideration.

ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT, FARNBOROUGH (HOLIDAYS).

Viscount WOLMER: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for
Air why the workers at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, have received notice that they are, to be deprived this year of their usual holiday on Good Friday and the King's Birthday?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): As I explained in my reply of 17th February to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), it was decided in connection wish the grant of a week's paid leave to industrial employés that only five paid public holidays should be allowed in future. Which these five days should be was considered by the men's representatives on the Whitley Committees at the various establishments, and the majority were in favour of the selection of Easter Monday, Whit Monday, August Bank Holiday, Christmas Day and Boxing Day. These five days were definitely selected by the trade union side of the works committee at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough. Good Friday and the King's Birthday will therefore cease to be paid public holidays.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Whitley Council does not represent 30 per cent. of the industrial workers—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] I have ascertained the figures. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it does not represent 30 per cent. of the industrial workers of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a fact"]—and, is he also aware that the British Legion and other organisations of the workers at this factory have passed resolutions protesting against this order?

Mr. PALMER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is possible for him to ascertain the opinion of these people, except through the recognised machinery?

Mr. MONTAGUE: In reply to the question of the Noble Lord opposite, I am not aware of either of the points which he has raised, but I am aware that there has been no representation, other than that which I have mentioned.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the fact that the Whitley Council does not represent a large body of these workers, the Air Ministry have on more than one
occasion had direct intercourse with other organisations; and will he now make inquiries as to whether these other organisations agree with the views which he has just expressed; and does he really think that it is a good thing for these men to work on Good Friday?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not think that it lies with the Air Ministry to make inquiries. If these representations are to be made, they can be made to the Air Ministry. As to working on Good Friday, I do not agree with working unnecessarily on a public holiday.

Sir S. HOARE: Do I understand the Under-Secretary to say that he will reconsider the question if further representations are made to him?

HON. MEMBERS: "No."

Mr. MILLS: As this question obviously applies, in the main, to engineers who work by the hour, and who are represented by their union in these cases, is it not a fact that the trade practice is to treat Good Friday as a working day?

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Will the Prime Minister tell us what the business will be for next week, and how far down the Order Paper he desires to go in the event of his Motion being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: May I answer the second question first? The Government propose to dispose of the first three Orders on the Paper and the Overseas Trade (Guarantees) Money Resolution, which is exempted business. I understand that in regard to one of

these items, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill, the Amendments, so far as they are down on the Paper, are practically agreed and are not therefore expected to take a great amount of time.

On Monday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, there will be a general discussion on the Budget Resolutions.

On Thursday, as already announced, the House will meet at Eleven o'clock, and the Motion for the Easter Adjournment until Tuesday, 29th April, will be taken.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I went further and said what we propose to do when we come back. In the first week after the reassembly of Parliament, the business will be:

On Tuesday, 29th April; Supply (4th Allotted Day). The Vote will be announced before we rise.

On Wednesday, 30th April, and Thursday, 1st May, there will be the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions.

On Friday, 2nd May, we get the first of the extra Private Members' days after Easter.

As usual, I shall have to say that on any day, if time permits, other Orders may be taken.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 99.

Division No. 255.]
AYES.
[3.52 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benson, G.
Buxton, Rt. Hon, Noel (Norfolk. N.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Cameron, A. G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Blindell, James
Cape, Thomas


Alpass, J. H.
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Ammon, Charles George
Bowen, J. W.
Charleton, H. C.


Arnott, John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clarke, J. S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cluse, W. S.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Bromfield, William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Barr, James
Brothers, M.
Compton, Joseph


Batey, Joseph
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cowan, D. M.


Bellamy, Albert
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Dagger, George


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Buchanan, G.
Dallas, George


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff,Central)
Burgess, F. G.
Dalton, Hugh


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Romerll, H. G.


Day, Harry
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawson, John James
Rothschild, J. de


Dickson, T.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rowson, Guy


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leach, W.
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Dukes, C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Duncan, Charles
Lees, J.
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Edge, Sir William
Lindley, Fred W.
Sanders, W. S.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Longbottom, A. W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longden, F.
Sexton, James


Egan, W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Elmley, Viscount
Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William


England, Colonel A.
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shillaker, J. F.


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simmons, C. J.


Freeman, Peter
McElwee, A.
Simon. E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McKinlay, A.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinkinson, George


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sitch, Charles H.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McShane, John James
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gibbins, Joseph
March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gibson, H. M. (Lance, Moseley)
Marcus, M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gill, T. H.
Markham, S. F.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Gillett, George M.
Marley, J.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Glassey, A. E.
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gould, F.
Mathers, George
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Matters, L. W.
Snell, Harry


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Granville, E.
Melville, Sir James
Sorensen, R.


Gray, Milner
Messer, Fred
Stamford, Thomas W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Middleton, G.
Stephen, Campbell


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Millar, J. D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mills, J. E.
Strauss, G. R.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Milner, Major J.
Sullivan, J.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Montague, Frederick
Sutton, J. E.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morley, Ralph
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrls-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Taylor, W. B.(Norfolk, S. W.)


Hardle, George D.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Haycock, A. W.
Mort, D. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Moses, J. J. H.
Tillett, Ben


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Toole, Joseph


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muff, G.
Tout, W. J.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muggerldge, H. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh
Turner, B.


Hoffman, P. C.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Vaughan, D. J.


Hollins, A.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, Daniel
Oldfield, J. R.
Walker, J.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wellhead, Richard C.


Horrabin, J. F.
Palin, John Henry
Watkins, F. C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Paling, Wiltrld
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Isaacs, George
Perry, S. F.
West. F. R.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, Joseph


Johnston, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion
White, H. G.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Whiteley, William (Biaydon)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kennedy, Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Raynes, W. R.
Winterton, G. E. (Lelcester,Loughb'gh)


Kinley, J.
Richards, R.
Wise, E. F.


Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Lang, Gordon
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)



Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bracken, B.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Richard George
Chapman, Sir S.


Atkinson, C.
Buchan, John
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cranbourne, Viscount


Beaumont, M. W.
Butler, R. A.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Capt, H. C.


Berry, Sir George
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eden, Captain Anthony




Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Smith, Louis W.(Sheffield, Hallam)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ferguson, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smithers Waldron


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fleiden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Tinne, J. A.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Penny, Sir George
Train, J.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownail, Sir Assheton
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsbotham, H.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hurd, Percy A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Woimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw th)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Margesson.


Question put, and agreed to.

TROUT (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to provide for the better protection of trout in Scotland; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Sir Robert Hamilton; supported by Captain Bennett, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. Dickson, Sir Patrick Ford, and Mr. Duncan Millar; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

BILLS REPORTED.

NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title Amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title Amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to:

Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to convert and consolidate the capital of the Milford Docks Company; to confer further powers on that company; and for other purposes." [Milford Docks Bill [Lords].]

LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

MILFORD DOERS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Whatever may be the views of Members of the House on the terms of the various Clauses of this Bill, 4.0 p.m. the object of the Bill is one which, I think, will commend itself to Members of all parties. Its object is to secure that the slums of Scotland, which have long been a standing reproach, will be done away with, and that in place thereof there will be built houses of adequate accommodation in which healthy, happy lives can be lived, and, at the same time, provide a considerable amount of employment for a number of our unemployed workmen. Before proceeding to deal with the terms of the Bill itself, let me turn aside for a moment and look at the problem which the Bill sets out to solve. The starting point in the recent history of this subject is the year 1912. In that year, representations were made by the Scottish Miners' Federation as to the conditions prevailing in the mining areas in Scotland, and a Royal Commission was set up to inquire into the housing conditions of the working classes in Scotland, and to report what steps were necessary to improve these.
The Commission made a thorough investigation of the conditions in all parts of Scotland, and their report, issued in 1917, is a mine of information on the subject. It is no exaggeration to say that when the report was published it awakened the public conscience, and enabled the Scottish people to realise that a condition of affairs existed in their midst which they could not continue to tolerate. The report revealed for the first time in recent years a picture of the housing conditions in Scotland as a whole which showed, in a broad, general way, unsatisfactory sites of houses and villages, insufficient supplies of water, unsatisfactory provision for drainage, inadequate provision for the removal of
refuse, widespread absence of decent sanitary conveniences, houses, in many of the mining areas badly constructed, incurably damp labourers' cottages on farms, whole townships unfit for human occupation in the crofting counties and the islands, primitive and casual provision for many of the seasonal workers. The Royal Commission did rot deal in broad generalities; they came down to actual figures of houses needed. The figures have been quoted over and over again, but they will bear repetition.
Briefly, the Commission recommended that there were required in Scotland no fewer than 121,430 houses to meet the needs of the people, based on the standard of housing in general acceptance in 1917. But the Commission were not satisfied with the standard of housing accepted at that time, and they were strengthened in that opinion by a reference to tile census figures, which showed that half the houses in Scotland were of one and two rooms only. Accordingly, the Commission recommended the raising of the standard, and to raise the standard of housing an additional 114,560 houses were required—a total of 235,990 houses, before Scotland could be regarded as adequately housed. Each Government since the issue of the Commission's report in 1917, has made its contribution to the solution of this problem, and altogether to 28th February last, the latest date for which returns are available, there has been provided under all forms of State assistance by local authorities and private enterprise a total of 107,451 houses.
As it is estimated that 10,000 houses are required annually in Scotland to meet the normal needs, and to provide for the new yearly demands, it will be realised that since 1919, when the first scheme of Government assistance was passed by Parliament, building operations have on average only just kept pace wish the normal needs of the Scottish people. Incidentally, it may be noted that of the 107,451 houses referred to as having been completed since 1919, no fewer than 42,413 have been completed by local authorities under the provisions of the Labour Government's Act of 1924. The next largest number, completed by local authorities under the Act of 1919, amount to 25,129, and the next in order is private enterprise with 17,724 houses under the
Act of 1923. But all who have given consideration to the subject are convinced that however commendable the efforts of local authorities up-to-date have been, the houses that have been built have not succeeded to any extent in solving the problem of the slums or of the housing of the poorer section of the community. That section of the community comprises those whose economic position prevents them from paying the rent which has been charged for the greater number of houses which have already been built. Some steps, however, have been taken in this direction with the aid of the 50 per cent. grant made available under the 1923 Act, and 11,205 houses have been built at low rents specifically to take the place of houses that were occupied but were unfit for occupation.
This, however, is only a small contribution in relation to the magnitude of the problem which we are facing. In 1919, the local authorities in Scotland estimated that 34,755 houses were required to replace houses that should be closed, while 41,880 houses were required to relieve overcrowding. Recent available figures indicate that there are at least 13,000 houses occupied in Glasgow that should be closed; in Edinburgh, over 5,000; in Greenock, about 1,400; in Dundee, about 2,000; and in Aberdeen, about 1,500; besides a large number in other parts of the country for which I do not attempt to give figures. The problem is not only that of clearing away houses that have long since served their day and generation, but also of providing adequate accommodation for persons who are living in overcrowded conditions. The problem of overcrowding has been specially before the Government in the framing of the Bill, as will be explained later. Overcrowding is not confined to what are generally known and regarded as slum areas. It is just as common outside such areas, and in the interests of health, decency and morality, must be prevented, if that can possibly be accomplished. According to the latest census returns, more than 2,000,000 persons in Scotland, or over 43 per cent. of the population, were living more than two in one room.
As an endeavour to remedy this state of affairs, the Bill proposes that grants will be given, not only for the re-housing of persons displaced by the closing of
uninhabitable houses, but also for those displaced by the operations of a local authority to abate overcrowding. The conditions of the slum areas in our large centres of population are prominently brought to our notice from time to time by the reports of the commissioners appointed by the Central Department to inquire into clearance schemes promoted by the local authorities. It may be permissible at this stage to quote a few descriptions to show the conditions in which many people are at present living, and which this Bill proposes to remedy. Here is what is stated in reports submitted by these commissioners in 1926 and 1927:
Many tenants of the slum houses scheduled for closure have to burn gas all day, winter and summer. Damp was present everywhere and the walls and ceilings in a large number of houses were soaking; the street was visible through holes in the wall, and the houses were the happy hunting ground of all kinds of vermin.
Another of these reports states:
I found two-roomed houses, which were already too small for one family, accommodating a second family as lodgers. How is it possible for any sense of decency or morality, let alone comfort, to remain with the occupant?
Such being the condition at present, how is it possible to abolish them? As has hitherto been the practice, the Government propose to work through the local authorities. The local authorities, as has already been shown, have to a certain extent been engaged in this work, but in recent years they have represented that, owing to the increasing financial burdens, further assistance from the State should be forthcoming. It is proposed in the terms of this Bill to furnish this financial assistance. Experience has shown, too, that certain improvements in the machinery for clearing slums are necessary, and this Bill embodies those improvements.
It should be explained that, under the present law, slum clearance in the larger areas is generally carried out by what are known as improvement schemes. These schemes, in addition to scheduling the ground necessary for clearance, are required to show the manner in which the local authority propose to develop or utilise the ground when cleared. This is not always practicable, but a decision in the English Courts has laid down that a scheme which does not show in detail
the re-development proposals is not a competent one. If progress is to be made with schemes, it is essential that, when the local authority have cleared the properties in an area, they should be left free to develop the area as and how circumstances may show to them to be best. It is therefore necessary to separate the clearance procedure from the development procedure, and this constitutes the main difference between the procedure under the present Statute and that proposed under the Bill.
The proposal of Part I of this Bill, which deals with the clearance or improvement of unhealthy arears, is that for what may be termed the black spots in the area of a local authority, the local authority must pass what Clause I terms a clearance Resolution. As soon as that Resolution has been passed, the local authority are required to proceed to clear the area in one of two ways. Either they may call upon the owners to demolish the unfit houses, or the local authority may purchase the houses and themselves demolish; or the owners may do some of the demoltion and the local authority the rest. In this way, the local authority will not require—as they do under the present Statute—to clear all the land in an area, but only such part as they consider necessary.
Where the local authority call on the owners to demolish, they do so, in terms of Clause 2, by means of a clearance order, which does not become effective until it has been confirmed by the Central Department. The owner has thus a right of appeal to the Department against the decision of a local authority condemning his property. Where the owner demolishes, the site remains his property for development in accordance with the local building regulations. Where the local authority, instead of calling on the owners to clear away buildings in an area, decide to purchase the unfit properties and demolish them, they will do so, failing agreement, by means of a compulsory purchase order, as provided for in Clause 8 of the Bill. This, like the clearance order, requires the confirmation of the Central Department; an owner will thus have a right of appeal against the decision of the local authority.
The procedure in connection with these orders will follow that at present in operation for the compulsory acquisition of land under the Housing Acts—a procedure which has been found simple and inexpensive. In addition to the land included in a clearance area, a Local authority will be empowered in terms of Clause 3 to acquire additional ground for the purpose of securing an effective redevelopment of the area. When the local authority have acquired the land in or adjoining a clearance area, and have demolished the buildings thereon, they may proceed to consider the development thereof, and, in addition to using it for re-housing or as open spaces, may in terms of Clause 4, utilise it for any statutory purpose or may sell or otherwise dispose of it, subject to such conditions as they choose.
In addition to the black spots, there are areas which are not quite so bad. In these, while some of the houses should be demolished, others are capable of improvement, and in yet others there is overcrowding which should be abated. In such cases, the local authority may pass what is termed an improvement resolution, as provided for in Clause 5. As soon as this resolution has been passed, the local authority must then proceed, in terms of Clause 6, to secure the repair of such houses as can be repaired by calling on the owners to execute all the necessary repairs. Where demolition is necessary, they call on the owners to do so, or they may themselves purchase or demolish. They terry acquire land for opening out the area, and they must take all necessary steps to abate overcrowding, and, in particular, must make and enforce by-laws to this end. These actions of local authorities in connection with clearances an 3 improvements will necessitate the displacement of tenants for whom alternative accommodation will require to be available, and Clause 7 provides for the local authority being required by the Central Department to make the necessary re-housing provision before actually displacing tenants.
The Bill, in Clause 9, re-enacts the existing statutory provisions as to compensation. These have been in operation since 1919. Where it is necessary to acquire property which cannot be classed as unfit for habitation, tine market value
will be paid, subject to the provisions of the Third Schedule of the Bill, under which regard will be had to the condition of the property and to the use to which it has been put. Provision is made in Clause 9, Sub-section (4) for compensation on a market value basis for a good house in an otherwise bad tenement which the local authority require the owners to demolish. So much for Part I of the Bill.
Part II deals with the repair, demolition, or closing of insanitary houses. It contains a number of alterations in the existing statutes dealing with these matters, but these alterations, though so important administratively, do not constitute any material amendment on the existing procedure. It is probably unnecessary, therefore, to enter into any detailed explanations of the Clauses of this part further than to say that they provide power to the local authority to call upon owners to carry out necessary repairs, and, in default of the owner, the local Authority may carry it out at his expense. There is also power to the local authority to call upon an owner to demolish houses unfit for habitation, and to do so in default of the owner, and at his expense; and there is the full right of appeal on the part of the owners to the sheriff.
In Part III of the Bill, Clause 18 requires the local authority to consider the housing needs of their district from time to time, and as occasion arises to submit proposals to the Department for the provision of new houses. In particular, every town council is required in 1930 to furnish the Department with a general statement of its housing proposals for the three years to 1933, and thereafter to furnish similar statements every five years. In this way, the local authorities will be under an obligation to keep the housing conditions in their areas constantly under review.
The financial proposals are contained in Clauses 19 to 21. Instead of the present percentage grant, the new grant to be given by the State will take the form of a fixed sum per person displaced, for whom re-housing has been provided consequent on the operations of the local authority under the, Bill for the closure and demolition of defective houses, and the abatement of overcrowding. The
grant made will be a sum of £2 10s. per person payable for a period of 40 years, this sum to be increased, following the precedent of the Act of 1924, by 5s. in cases where houses are provided in rural areas as defined in that Act. The amount of the assistance to be granted by the Exchequer together with the contributions from local rates will enable a local authority to provide houses for the larger families at a rent suitable to their needs. The larger the number of apartments in a house the larger will be the grant. In this way definite encouragement will be given to local authorities to provide a larger house than the two-apartment house which many of them desire to provide in large numbers and which obviously is quite unsuited for family occupation. Within an aggregate rental to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Clause 20, a local authority will be able to differentiate in rents to individual tenants if the circumstances justify such a procedure.
To meet the demands of local authorities, the grant will be available where they provide accommodation for single persons in hostels. In addition to the grant per person referred to there will be an additional grant per person, subject to a maximum of 15s., to meet the expenses of local authorities who require to pay compensation for good property which at their request has to be demolished under a clearance order or a compulsory purchase order. The amount of the grant will, under the terms of Clause 21, be subject to review every three years. Clause 20 sets out the special conditions which must be complied with if the financial assistance is to be paid. These are similar to what are contained in the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
Part IV of the Bill contains various miscellaneous provisions, including machinery for securing possession of houses subject to demolition or closing orders. Several of them re-enact, with amendments, existing statutory provisions. Clause 27 enables local authorities to grant loans for the repair of houses. Clause 30 re-enacts the existing power of the Department to compel defaulting local authorities to do their duty. Clause 34 makes provision whereby rates will be levied, so far as slum clear-
ance re-housing under the Bill is concerned, only on the rents charged by the local authority and not, as is sometimes done at present, on hypothetical rents fixed by an assessor as being the rents that might be obtained from a willing tenant.
Such is a brief, but I hope concise. general summary of the main structure of the Bill. As has been already said, it is designed to simplify procedure and to provide adequate financial assistance to local authorities. Schemes approved—and I should. be glad if I could get the attention of some of my Scottish colleagues to this—as from the passing of this Bill will be eligible for grant. Therefore, I would strongly appeal to my Scottish colleagues to allow this Bill to go through as quickly as possible, and I would also appeal to local authorities in Scotland to get their schemes ready without delay. To use again the words of the Royal Commission, the object of the Bill is, "To secure for every class of the community wholesome-conditions of living, a healthy family in a healthy home." The proposals put forward are animated by a desire to see the housing of the Scottish people made worthy of Scotland's great history as a nation.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure we shall all sympathise with the desires which the Secretary of State has just expressed to the House, and we appreciate the lucid and succinct manner in which he has been able to discharge the task of moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope we, too, may be equally succinct, but the Bill will require close examination, because while every one of us agrees that its motives are excellent we must see whether its machinery is likely to carry out the objects it has in view. We approach this question with a totally different outlook from those of our colleagues south of the Border. In the case of Scotland it is not true that slum clearance schemes have suffered that entire collapse which apparently has been the case south of the Border.
We have succeeded in securing a regular amount of housing under slum clearance legislation, of which the local authorities in Scotland have taken advantage to an extent which equals the
effort in the whole of England; on a population basis this indicates that they have done eight or 10 times as much as has been done south of the border. Some 10 per cent. of all the housing in Scotland has been housing directed to this aim, the clearance of the slums; and when we are asked not merely to pass a new Bill but to repeal an old Bill we must look this gift horse very closely in the mouth. Simple and unlettered folk. such as politicians, who go from either side of the House into the den of the Treasury to wrestle with beasts at Ephesus occasionally come back lacking some portion of their garb, and we must assist to hold up the hands of the Secretary of State and his colleagues in their appeal to the Treasury, something on which Scottish Members in all parts of the House can always unite.
The slum clearance proposals were authorised first under the Act of 1923, in the Bonar Law Government. Under them the grant was a percentage grant on a fifty-fifty basis. The kernel of this Bill is a block grant to be worked out on a formula. I hail with joy the accession of hon. Members opposite to the view that a block grant administered on a formula is so much superior to a grant on a percentage basis. I notice they have not gone all the way, because compensation is still left on the percentage basis; but the essential part of the Bill provides for a block grant per person dispossessed and rehoused. When the Bill gets into Committee we must investigate the proposals of the Government closely, because hon. Members have put questions asking the meaning of this proposal, and I do not go further than to say that, as I understand it from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and from the very lucid speech delivered by the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Health in England, in explaining the English Bill, the new grant is to be paid per scheme. It is to be reckoned per person, but it is to be paid per scheme.
That gets rid of many questions asked by the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) about the grants continuing from son to grandson of the original slum dweller, about the position of a person whose circumstances had changed, and whether a person with 11 children would take with him to the new
house 11 quotas of money. I understand that none of those things hold true. As the hon. Lady said, taking a case in which 500 persons were displaced and 100 houses built, the new subsidy would be paid per scheme; and within that scheme it would be possible for the local authority to make rebates of rent or not, as it pleased. Therefore, this is strictly a grant made to a scheme, and the discretion as to differential rents remains entirely in the hands of the local authorities, but obviously any such differentiation cannot be made by the local authorities unless the finance of the scheme permits it, and that is a point of great importance to which we shall have to address ourselves. The proposals of the Bill are essentially financial, and the machinery Clauses, important as they Are, may reasonably be left to further discussion, and, more particularly, to the Committee stage. We have here a project to deal not merely with the housing situation in Scotland, but with unemployment in the building trade in Scotland, and the whole chance of this Bill affecting either of those things lies in its financial proposals and the extra assistance they will afford to the local authorities.
We intend to give the Government this Bill and the Financial Resolution without a Division. The Government have the responsibility, a grave and tremendous responsibility, for the housing of the people of Scotland. They have taken a considerable time to bring forward their proposals, and their responsibility is therefore all the greater. The present year is one of the weakest for housing in Scotland that there has been for long time. The year 1930 will see housing construction at one-half what it was in the year before, with corresponding unemployment in the building trades. What we are discussing now is not this year's housing programme in Scotland, which has already gone by the board, but next year's programme. This is the Government's Bill to deal with next year's housing programme, in order to bring it up to or to surpass the 20,000houses programmes of previous years.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Not in one year

Major ELLIOT: You must add in all the houses which were constructed, including the steel houses—the auxiliary programme as well as the other—and
then you will find that on the average there were 20,000 a year. At any rate, nobody will deny that housing in Scotland for the present year has suffered very great trouble. We are discussing now not how this year's programme can be improved, but how next year's programme can be improved. No doubt, we shall be told that the trouble this year has arisen through the inadequate subsidy fixed by the late Government, but I am quite ready to argue that point when the occasion arises. We are not discussing now the question of who is to blame; we are discussing the proposals put forward by the Government to deal with the housing situation in Scotland. Of all the speeches which have been delivered in regard to these housing proposals, that which was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was the most illuminating, because she gave the various subsidies which it is proposed to give. The hon. Lady said in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Housing (No. 2) Bill:
The capital value over 40 years of the Chamberlain subsidy is £70."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1930; col. 2063, Vol. 119.]
I think we are agreed that the capital value of the Chamberlain subsidy is £70, and that the Wheatley subsidy was £124. The hon. Lady went on to say that the first Greenwood subsidy would be £195, counting five persons to a house. That subsidy works out at £39 per person; under this Bill the subsidy will work out at £43 per person. This has been arrived at upon a fifty-fifty basis, and the capitalised value is over £160. Therefore, we are dealing not with the Chamberlain subsidy of £70 or the Wheatley subsidy of £124. We are dealing with the £160 subsidy which was given under the first Chamberlain Act. It will be seen that for anything less than five persons the new subsidy shows very little advantage over the old one, the amount being £168 as compared with £160. That is a very small contribution in view of the strong language used by the Secretary of State for Scotland in bringing forward the present proposal.
I am afraid that these proposals will lead to an apprehension in the minds of local authorities that they will not be very much better off under the new pro-
posal than they were under the old. An increase of £8, £10 or even £20 is, relatively speaking, a very small improvement as compared with the hopes held out on the introduction of the Bill. In the proposals which have been brought forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, the basis which has been taken for the calculation is five persons per house, but the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that his calculation is based on persons displaced and rehoused. Of course, if fewer people are displaced the grant will be correspondingly less. [Interruption.] Surely in the case of the persons displaced and rehoused the Government do not propose to let the new accommodation to somebody else.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The grant will be paid according to the number of persons rehoused.

Major ELLIOT: And that corresponds with the number of persons dispossessed.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is stretching a point here. You cannot compel a dispossessed slum tenant to accept a house if he does not desire to have it.

Major ELLIOT: At any rate, the house is to be made available to him at such a rent as he is able to pay, and we all desire that the man should take it. Therefore, we have to consider the number of persons actually dispossessed and rehoused under the schemes of which we have experience at the present time. I have here some figures relating to the Glasgow Corporation scheme of 1929. The number of persons displaced under that Act is rather under four per house. Therefore, the calculation of £168 per house is fully borne out by the experience of the corporation dealing with what is admittedly exactly one of the areas that would be dealt with under the present Measure. The difference of £8 in favour of the new Government scheme is, I suggest, an inadequate fulfilment of the promises which the Secretary of State for Scotland has just held out to the House. I have here some figures relating to schemes which have been put into operation by the Corporation of Glasgow, and as far as I can make out—they are given
with reserve and subject to further examination—they show that for the 1926–27 schemes the Government liability would be about £1,000, while for the 1928 scheme the Government's contribution would be less by about £65. In face of these facts, it is clear that the local authorities should look very closely into the provisions in this Bill dealing with the subsidy, and they should be compared with the provisions under which we have been previously working.
All that I wish to say in regard to the strong statements which have been made by the Secretary of State f Dr Scotland in introducing this Bill is that he is now assuming great responsibility for the programme of 1931, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to give us a little more information on this subject than he has given us in his speech. The right hon. Gentleman said that schemes approved as from the passing of this Bill get grants. That is what the Bill is intended to do, and it will be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that schemes introduced as from the introduction of this Bill will get grants. In the 1923 Act the provision was to apply after the introduction of the Act. I remember that I and my colleagues in the case of the city council of Glasgow were able to make those provisions retrospective and they went down to every scheme of every house which had been built, and which was being built. We made our 50-50 scheme retrospective at a time when the contribution to slum clearance schemes was not more than one-third by the Government and two-thirds by the local authority.
We are prepared to hack up the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to strengthen the terms of the Financial Resolution. No doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland is as anxious as I am in regard to this matter, but he can only co-operate in secret, and we are able to co-operate with him in the open. Let me suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should once more walk up the Treasury steps, and not return therefrom until he has got an assurance that the introduction, and not the passing of this Bill shall be the date from which the new grants will commence, because I think that should be made the starting point for the new grant. That would make sure that the local authorities
would immediately take steps to put forward schemes which otherwise they might be tempted to hold back until the actual terms have been settled. We are interested in the new proposal for transforming the 50-50 grant into a lump sum per person. During the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution I intend to move an Amendment to leave out the words "persons of the working classes." While it may be reasonable to refer in the main Statute to persons of the working classes, when we come to cases of persons dispossessed it is quite another matter. I merely wish to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman that when we come to consider the Financial Resolution I shall move that Amendment.
With regard to the new system of finance which is proposed in this Bill, local authorities seem to think that it does not offer them very great advantages over the old system, and although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said that the kernel and heart of these Bills is the subsidy per person and the differential rents, the local authorities will be very little better off under the new proposals than under the old. I do not believe that the new rents will be lower than the old ones in the City of Glasgow where, under the rehousing scheme, the rent is 8s. 6d. per week inclusive of rates. The new proposals are not subject to any maximum. The new houses are slum clearance houses, and they are subject to the discretion of the local authority and the Minister. Consequently, the new system, although interesting, seems to me to be entirely inadequate in regard to its financial proposals. The machinery proposed seems, in some places, to simplify the procedure. Our criticisms will be of a friendly nature, and we shall bring forward our point of view without any undue emphasis. We congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on this, his first Housing Bill, but we wish we could get a little more milk for the bantling, 5.0 p.m. because otherwise we fear that not only will it not lead to a great increase in housing in Scotland, and particularly in the clearance of slum areas, but that it will not even bring up the level of housing in Scotland to the level at which it was when we left office last year.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Before I deal with the Bill, I should like to associate myself with the concluding part of the speech just delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend. We are strongly of opinion that the grants under this Bill should be made retrospective to the introduction of the Bill. We regard that as a very important and salient point, and we should like the Government to give it the most mature and immediate consideration. I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on the manner in which he introduced the Bill. I thought that in the short space which he allowed himself he gave us an ample description of what the Bill contained. If he did not cover all the points, I trust that before I sit down I shall be able to call attention to those points which he omitted, and I have no doubt that at the end of the discussion we shall have a full reply from the Under-Secretary. The House will have noticed that on more than one occasion during his speech the Secretary of State paid a tribute to the Housing Commission. It was a somewhat belated tribute, because this Bill is based largely, in sentiment and in fact, upon the findings of that Commission. The Commission was presided over by a very distinguished Scottish Liberal, Sir Henry Ballantyne, and I think that the House owes to Sir Henry and to the Commission a very deep debt of gratitude.
Like many others in the House, I listened to the whole of the discussion on the housing question this week—I do not think I missed more than two or three speeches—and it is quite clear, as the House will have gathered from the speech of the Secretary of State, that this Scottish Bill makes housing legislation in Scotland march pari passu with English housing legislation. There is, so far as we can gather, very little distinction between the two Bills, but such distinction as there is I will deal with in a few moments. I do not think it would be improper if I drew attention to two speeches which were delivered in the course of that general discussion. My hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken drew particular attention to a speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and I think he did not belittle the tribute which the hon. Lady deserved. I should like to draw attention to two other speeches by
two housing experts, although, after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), one is almost afraid to use the term "housing experts." I refer to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir T. Walters).
Those speeches were delivered, as it were, from the back bench. They were not hostile speeches. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston was, in my judgment, not only a practical but a most courageous speech. He made it perfectly plain that the progress of housing in Scotland, particularly as it affected the slums, had been deplorably and depressingly slow. I will not quote the sentences from the report which the Secretary of State quoted, though I intended to do so, but they are a very severe condemnation of the policy of past Governments so far as housing conditions, particularly among the urban population, are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston made it very patent to the House that, although popularly this Bill is regarded as a Slum Clearance Bill, it says little or nothing about the building of new houses, and he went further. and said that the real solution, not only of the slum problem but of the problem of housing all over the country, whether in slum districts or not, was the immediate building of more houses at cheaper rents for the very poor of the community. These appeared to me to be very wise, just and fair criticisms.
That speech must be associated with the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrhyn and Falmouth. He, too, ventured to criticise the Bill upon these lines, but he was not content with criticism; he made one or two very admirable suggestions. They were made as applicable to the English situation, but in my judgment they are equally applicable to the Scottish situation. He said, firstly, that the housing problem could never be adequately discussed or considered unless you discussed and considered at the same time the control of prices. and, secondly, that you must introduce, into any Bill which was to deal adequately with the situation, a proposal for the co-ordination of the work of all
the local authorities, while a[...] the same time getting rid of meticulous and detailed supervision of local authorities, which has been in the past one of the main causes, if not the main cause, of the inevitable delay in the building of houses. It is true that every local authority must have some control over the building of houses if there is to be any State or local rate expenditure; but, as the Minister of Health pointed out quite clearly, and this struck me very forcibly, the obstacles in the past to the proper fulfilment of the ambition of the various Statutes which have been passed in regard to housing, from 1919 onwards, by various well-intentioned Ministers, have always been, in the first place, the problem of the existing law, and, secondly, the problem of procedure under that law. On the whole, this Bill makes a bold attempt to get [...] of those obstacles. So far, so good.
I am glad, in a way, that the abolition of the old percentage contribution is to take effect. I believe that. that was a method of calculation which engendered delay and harassed and handicapped the various authorities. [Interruption.] If I remember aright, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), in one of the intervals in which he praised this Bill, made it perfectly plain that he, too, was very glad that the old percentage contribution was departing and that a substitute was to be put in its place. If we ire not any further to have this percentage contribution, let us examine what inducements are 'being introduced into This Bill to encourage local authorities to develop to the full the proposals of the Bill. As I understand it, this point might probably be discussed in a more appropriate way on the Financial Resolution, but I think it has a good deal of policy behind it. So far as I know, what will happen in Scotland when the percentage contribution is abolished has not been pointed out. I understand that there will be a grant of £2 10s. for each displaced person in urban districts, and of £2 15s. in rural districts. While in England the sum for each displaced person in an urban district is £2 5s., in Scotland it is £2 103, and while in a rural district in England the sum for each displaced person is £2 10s., in Scotland it will be £2 15s.
A point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, in a very
delightful and charming speech which she delivered to the House the other day on the English Bill, that the present Government were not continuing the proportion as between rural and urban districts which the 1924 Act introduced. Under the Act of 1924, the amount of subsidy which was to be given for a rural house was £12, and for an urban house it was to be £9. I will not follow my hon. and gallant Friend into his more advanced mathematical calculations, but to a plain man it seems that, under this scheme, the relative proportions are not the same, and the average amount will not work out in the same proportion to any occupant of one of the new houses. I regret, therefore, that that proportion, as between urban and rural, has not been maintained. When we come to the question of rents, which is a necessary corollary of what I have been saying, I cannot but feel that under this Bill this question will form itself into a ticklish problem. There must be differentiation in rents; that is quite obvious. But I cannot help thinking that the Government have, on the whole, produced what I regard as a fairly satisfactory method of calculation. I think there is some sense behind it, and if it is well administered and worked out, I cannot see why it should not be a great success. I cannot associate myself with the interrogatory of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken as to what amount the Treasury will have to expend on the scheme. Obviously, that must depend on the success of the scheme.

Major ELLIOT: This is the amount per unit. It is true the number of units will depend on the success, but the amount is fixed when we pass the Resolution, and unless you deal with that now, you lose all chance of dealing with the Bill.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry if I misunderstood what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, and, of course, I withdraw what I said. But people are apt to ask how much the Government are going to give under the scheme, and, obviously, no Government tan say how much the Treasury will have to pay ultimately. It all depends on the success of the scheme. If the local authorities go into the scheme whole-heartedly and make the best of it, then there is no
doubt that the Treasury will be called upon, as well as the local rates, to supply a larger amount. Some of us think that the larger the amount for an objective of this kind the better.
May I ask my hon. Friend who is to reply a question with regard to the fixing of these rents? I have in my hand the OFFICIAL REPORT dealing with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. He said that local authorities would be instructed to take into consideration, when they fixed the rents, first of all the Exchequer grant and, secondly, £3 15s., which was the rate to be raised. I understood when I read the introduction to the Bill in this country that £3 15s., which is to be raised by the rates, means £4 10s. in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health went on to say that in areas which were, as he called them, agricultural or rural, there was to be a county rate raised of £1, and that that £1 was to go from the county to the parishes, as we have them in Scotland, or to rural district councils, as they are in England, in alleviation of the £4 10s. in Scotland for that particular parish or district.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The rating authority will be the county.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am very glad to have that explanation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will regard what I have said as a legitimate mistake on my part. I had heard that poor agricultural parishes in England were to get £1 off, and I thought that the poor agricultural parishes in Scotland would get the same. May I deal with a problem which, so far, has not been dealt with? It is a problem of such wide importance, as far as Scotland is concerned, that I make no apology for dealing with it now. Under the Bill there is, first of all, to be a clearance area, and, secondly, there is to be an improvement area; but there has been no mention of a third area, such as was mentioned when discussing the English Bill. I refer to individual bad houses outside any of these areas. In Scotland the individual house is one of great importance. As the House will know, in Scotland there is the very difficult problem of isolated houses, and there are two forms of overcrowding—the overcrowding
in a district where there are a number of houses grouped together, and, what is just as important, serious overcrowding in individual houses. It is with that I would like my hon. Friend to deal. We have at the present time the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which has been on the Statute Book two or three years. It is true it does not deal with the building of new houses; it deals almost entirely with reconditioning of existing houses. I put a question the other day to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what return he could give us with regard to the number of houses reconditioned under that Act, and I was very much astonished to find that, apart from a county or two, very few people indeed have taken advantage of that Act. I think there must be something wrong somewhere. Apart from my own constituency and one or two others, not more than 100 houses were reconditioned under that Act. It is clear that the progress has been very slow and dilatory, just as the hon. Member for Anglesey pointed out in her speech the other day.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Not more than 100 houses?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I mean in one county. I think the number in my own county is higher. But the response to the suggestion under that Act has been very poor indeed; it has been a failure. In some parts it has worked well, but, speaking generally, for Scotland it has not worked well, and though the Act has been on the Statute Book for a few years, only about 1,900 houses have been reconditioned. Can anyone say that that is a satisfactory response to this Act?

Mr. SKELTON: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the figures more accurately, he will see, that whereas the Act began to work slowly, it is now working increasingly well, and there is acceleration.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am glad to hear that, for I have put questions with a view to stirring up the Government and the local authorities. But the fact remains that the latest figure shows that only 1,900 houses have been reconditioned under that Act. I am informed by an hon. Member behind me that in some counties instead of the numbers increasing, they are actually going back. The
reason, I think, is obvious. The local authorities have not stirred themselves to take immediate and effective action.

Mr. SKELTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any case where local authorities have been dilatory in dealing with applications?

Mr. MACPHERSON: That is not the point at all. I am saying that for some reason or other—and I put it down to the local authorities as a body; I do not particularise any individual authority—local authorities as a body have been slow, ineffective and dilatory in regard to the reconditioning of houses. I am really sorry to see that in this Bill there is nothing to spur on the local authorities, either under the old Rural Workers' Act or under this Measure. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that Clause 30, which is the Clause dealing with default, merely re-enacts the old [...]. We all know that during the last year practically only 50 per cent. of the houses expected to be built have been built under the Scottish Act.

Major ELLIOT: In the present year.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, in the present year. It is all the same from the point of view of my argument. The point upon which I want to insist is that this Bill does not go far enough in compelling local authorities to take action. I am glad the medical officer of health does not have the invidious responsibility of condemning places and taking the entire responsibility. Under this Measure he can go to local authorities and make an official representation, and if that is not carried in to effect by the local authority there is an appeal to the Department. When the Department comes in under Clause 30, the wording is not compulsory. That is not enough. If the four electors come forward and say that a house ought to be condemned, that it is a danger to the community, that it is a danger to the inhabitants, and the medical officer of health supports them, it ought to be the duty of the Department to take immediate steps. All it is going to do is to ask the local authority for a local inquiry, and after it has reported to you, you can ask the local authorities to fulfil the suggestion made by the local inquiry and to effect a remedy. In default—and it is only then that you are really going to take action
—you can take them by mandamus to the Court of Session and charge them with the expenses, or yourself build. In view of our experience in the past, that is going to take a long time. I will do my best in Committee to introduce something which will enable the voice of the community, through their representatives in the local authority, to be heard so that buildings of that kind, whether they are slums as a body or slums as individual houses, ought to be demolished, and knocked off the face of the earth.
We have heard a great deal about slums and improvements. The local authority may make up its mind to pass a clearance resolution dealing with a clearance area, or it may make up its mind to pass an improvement resolution dealing with an improvement area, but there is nothing in the Bill to compel it to provide alternative accommodation. That complaint was made in the discussion on the English Bill. Clause 7 does not cover the point. Before any of these Resolutions are passed, there ought to be alternative accommodation available for the people who are to be displaced. I hear it rumoured that the Bill may be taken in Committee upstairs before the House rises for Easter. I think I am voicing the sentiments of every Scottish Member when I say it would be foolishness to attempt to take it in the Scottish Standing Committee before the Easter vacation. I am anxious that it should go through expeditiously, but I think every democrat will agree that a Bill embodying proposals of this kind ought to be discussed as far as possible with local authorities and with the people in the constituencies. We are not all-powerful except by registration of votes. We want to get the clash of one opinion on another. We want to hear the views of the local authorities. My local authority will want to know how much they are to have to expend or to collect in rates, and they will want to know that in Glasgow, too. Hon. Members opposite would be the first, if any other Government were in power, especially as the vacation is so near at hand—

Mr. W. ADAMSON: There is no intention to take the Bill before Easter.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I aim very glad to get so satisfactory an answer, and I will not take up any further time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The problem of the slums has been before us for a long time, and any Bill to mitigate it would be one which almost everyone would agree to try to pass. I do not know much outside my native city, bat I know sufficient of that to know the barbarous conditions under which the great mass of our people have to live. Indeed—I do not claim this with any great pride—I represent possibly more slums than any other Member. I have hardly a real residential part in my Division. It is badly overcrowded, and consists of little else than slum dwellings. But the problem of slums leaves me quite cold. Last week, or the week before, I addressed a meeting in the heart of my Division, in the midst of the most thickly populated slum area—the Calton district. The meeting was packed, and hundreds, possibly thousands, had to he turned away hardly one person had a collar and tie. Very few of the women had even a hat. It was packed full of mankind and womankind, almost the poorest description of people, and not one of those persons, with the exception of a few living in a slum clearance area, was decently housed. Almost everyone was housed under conditions which are, to say the least, deplorable and shocking. Yet, possibly not one out of the thousands who attended and the thousands who were turned away was concerned with the problem of housing at all. The one problem with which every, one of them was concerned was the problem of food. They are clearing the people out of the slums, but, far from making the position happier, they are making it unhappier.
The great mass of these people have no income. Last year the Glasgow Corporation took thousands of people to the small debt court. The people who have been cleared out would have been happier in their slums. What does 'slum clearance mean? For these miserable shocking slums they pay a rent of 5s. a week. The new house is 8s. 6d. a week. It is good value for money, but it is 8s. 6d. as compared with 5s. They have an income of 30s. under the new Unemployment Insurance Act for two children and two adults and the extra 3s. 6d. has to be
taken from food and the necessaries of life. I have a brother who is a doctor and his panel practice is in a slum district. He said to me, "The choice is shocking, but if I have to choose between food and a slum, I am having food." That is why your slum Bill leaves me cold. It only means an addition to the expenses, and depriving these people of the necessaries of life. Do not think I am condemning my colleagues for bringing in the Bill. I think they are right, but I want to put the problem as I see it. The miserable articles of furniture that they have fit the slums. They only need one bag of coal but, if you shift them into a good, light desirable house with the same income, in addition to the rent, they need at least three bags of coal. To try to mitigate the problem, the parish council last winter made them an allowance of 2s. for coal.
The Scottish system of housing is indefensible. There is a hole in the wall for a bed. Now a person who is shifted to a slum clearance house has to buy beds, and he cannot buy them. The present furniture fits the miserable slum, the one room, but you have given them two rooms. Last week I visited constituents drawing Poor Law relief and unemployment benefit. It was an awful experience to go to their houses; there were no articles of furniture. According to figures given in this House, the Glasgow Corporation have built only 3,958 slum-clearance houses, and 700 of the tenants have been put out for inability to pay rent. At least double that number left before they could be put out. The people who have removed from the slum dwellings into slum-clearance houses have had to come out of those houses because they could not keep them going. They had insufficient furniture. It is no good giving them a bath room unless they have the money with which to purchase coal to heat the water required. The problem is a rent problem; it is a, poverty problem. The late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that the proposal will make little or no difference. If it is going to make little or no difference, why support it?

Major ELLIOT: Even if the sum is only £8, let us get the £8.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You are going to make a howl in order to get that; little or nothing.

Major ELLIOT: Yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not think that even that will account for the difference in rent, and enable these people to pay the rent. It is not merely rent, but the fact that you have extra on costs. You are to build three-roomed houses in place of the single apartment house and the cost of upkeep cannot be met. It is impossible to pay the rent out of the small incomes of the great mass of workers in my, or any other Glasgow, Division. That is your problem. This Bill, good as it may appear, does not deal with the fundamental question, which is one of poverty. Under this Bill the Government might have gone a little further. They might have tried to provide furniture for these people. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is present. In his schemes contained in the Yellow Book he spoke about making roads and about incurring public expenditure in finding work on the roads. I have little or no patience with such a suggestion. What is more important is the provision of furniture for the people who cannot buy the furniture required for these new houses. It is more important to bring human happiness into the homes of the people. I suggest to the Under-Secretary for Scotland that it is a most miserable thing to do to put people from the slums into houses which they cannot afford to furnish because they have no incomes to enable them to do so.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Would not work on the roads provide them with incomes?

Mr. BUCHANAN: The making of furniture would also provide men with work. The difference is that road-making does not provide the poor people with the same amount of human happiness as furniture does. The average person in the City of Glasgow receiving Poor Law relief and unemployment benefit does not want to be shifted into your slum clearance houses. He will drift back again because he cannot keep going. It is no use shifting the population unless you are going to tackle the problem of the poverty of the people. It is the only problem which I can see to-day. It was
mentioned in the House last Tuesday that in regard to the 3,900 houses occupied by slum clearance tenants, those tenants were in debt to the extent of £3,500 for arrears of rent. On other corporation houses there is practically no deficit at all. What is the use of talking of shifting people from slum dwellings if after they have been shifted they eventually drift back again? What is the use of moving them from one dwelling to another? It is no use giving them a house unless you can provide them with some form of happiness by assisting them to pay the rent and to provide the furniture. I and my colleagues welcome the Bill and will do what we can to help to pass it, but I am under no illusion, representing the great mass of poor people, in saying that they have practically no hope unless this or some other Government can bring to them the means of obtaining an income sufficient to meet their bodily and mental requirements.

Mr. BUCHAN: I find myself this afternoon in the pleasant and unfamiliar position of being able to congratulate the Government, with reservations, on the step they have taken forward in housing reform. It is a question on which there has been a great deal of legislation in recent years. The Measure now before the House does two things: it amends a certain number of provisions in the previous legislation and it also adds one or two new provisions with which it hopes to expedite the success of one of the greatest problems which is now before the country. It is a step forward, not a very long step or a very bold step, emphatically a step and not a stride, but still, I think, it is a step in the right direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), in his most interesting speech, said one very true thing. He said that the Scottish slum problem was very old and long-descended. I doubt very much whether the world will ever be without a slum problem. Slums seem to be an endemic disease in all complex societies. Each generation does its best to meet the problem left by its predecessors, but it creates slums in turn and leaves them for its successors to deal with. The Scottish slum problem both in its historical antecedents and its contemporary
problems seems to differ in many ways from the problem in England. I have always felt that a spectator coming to a Scottish slum must get a far greater impression of squalor and misery than he would get elsewhere. I have no doubt that housing conditions in East London, Middlesbrough and Manchester may be as bad as those in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee, but they are not so spectacularly bad. I remember when I first came to England I visited certain areas in East London which I had been told were plague spots, but I found it very difficult to find the plague. They seemed to me desirable residential areas compared with what I remember of the Cowgate, the Cowcaddens and the Gorbals.
There are certain reasons for the special character of our Scottish slums which make it necessary to treat them as a separate problem from those of England, and one of these reasons lies in their history. The conditions of life in an older Scotland were, I am afraid, very favourable to slum-making. We were a very poor people. We did not enjoy a clement climate. We were for a very long time under a constant threat of invasion from the South and so were compelled to huddle close for security. In the idiomatic phrase of our native land, we crept together for economy, for warmth and for defence. The result was—and I can say this to what is practically a national gathering this afternoon—that we were not a very hygienic people. No doubt we were godly, but we did not pay very much attention to that quality which is supposed to come next to godliness. There is a proverb which, I am sure, my friends know well:
The clartier the cosier
which sheds a lurid light upon the habits of our forefathers. It is often forgotten that until the end of the 18th century the Scottish nobility and gentry in Edinburgh lived under slum conditions in horrid little flats without light or air, with a filthy common staircase, and in the streets heaps of offal and garbage, and pigs and hens running about among them. Sir Walter Scott was born in a slum which would have horrified any modern reformer. He had six brothers and sisters who died in infancy because
of these slum conditions. Why, the first attempt at slum clearance in our history was the migration at the end of the 18th century from the Old Town to the New Town of Edinburgh. I am afraid that our historic antecedents have created a special tendency to slum-making north of the Border. The second reason for the special character of 6.0 p.m. the Scottish slums lies in the way the industrial revolution came to Scotland. Scotland got that revolution in almost as violent a form as she got the Reformation. In a decade or two a large part of the face of the country was changed. The balance between town and country was upset. The Scottish midlands became a hive of industry, villages grew into towns, towns grew into cities and cities into what William Cobbett called a "wen"—a vast shapeless conglomeration of humanity. Men and women were herded into insanitary new barracks, or into old overcrowded tenements in Glasgow and Edinburgh. There was very little foresight in the whole business, and for a long time the country was entirely unaware of the problem. John Bright in 1884 told the students of Glasgow University that a very large proportion of the people of Glasgow were at that time living in single rooms, without air and light, but he was not believed and there was almost a riot. Before the national conscience awoke to the problem, the problem had become almost insoluble. The result we know to-day. We have seen it only too clearly in unhealthy children and stunted men and women. As hon. Members know, the standard of height and physique of the Scottish soldier has had to be steadily lowered.
There is another special character of our Scottish slums, and that is that there is no slum clearance by natural causes, by dilapidation, by houses simply tumbling down. The old stone tenements in Glasgow and Edinburgh do not tumble down; they have an awful continuing power. They become yearly more filthy and more insanitary, but still they remain standing. Some of the new barracks, which are now slums, were built on old greens and closes behind tenements, back to back. The result is that slum clearance in Scotland must be a much more intricate
and much more drastic thing than in most other parts of the Kingdom.
There is also a rural problem, but not so serious, and it is not so serious for the rather melancholy reason of the depopulation of a large part of our Scottish countryside. Fortunately, in most Scottish lowland rural areas overcrowding is a thing unknown to-day. Many of the old hovels, for various reasons, have disappeared. We do not find to-day in rural Scotland, as we still find in rural England, hovels 200 or 300 Years old still holding together. The old thatched but-and-ben has mostly gone. It was not an altogether unwholesome kind of dwelling. Although the peat reek was bad for the eyes, it had a wonderful, antiseptic quality. But you will find to-day in many Scottish burghs and country towns closes and vennels which are a very fair imitation of city slums, and which in the interests of health and decency must be cleared.
That is the Scottish housing problem which requires a more drastic treatment than, I think, any other slum problem in this country to-day. A great deal of very valuable work has already been done in the last 10 years. This Bill attempts to expedite that work, not a great deal, but a little. On the general question, we are, of course, entirely agreed. Proper housing must be the basis of all social reform. It is futile to give education to the children who come from squalid and overcrowded homes. The slum is a hopeless obstacle in the way of the wisest health policy. If it is the duty of the community to give to every citizen not merely a livelihood, but a worthy life, then it is the first duty of any civilised community to root out this canker from its midst.
When I come to the Bill, I find myself in general agreement with its provisions. I think the division of slum areas, into clearance areas and improvement areas, a reasonable one—that is, inhabited areas which must be drastically c[...]eared and inhabited areas which can be partially re-modelled and brought up to a proper standard. I think the provisions for compensation are fair. The man, who for a ruinous dwelling gets compensation for site value, gets all that, he deserves, and probably more than he deserves.
There is no value to compensate for in the rickle of stones and timber which cumber his site, At the same time, the Bill provides reasonable compensation for the man who owns a habitable dwelling which is part of a tenement in a clearance area. I think the new provisions for Exchequer assistance are all to the good. The difficulty under the old system of the 50 per cent. grant for the estimated average annual loss has been that it was very hard to find out what exactly the loss was. The block grant system seems to me much fairer and more scientific. The grant does not inhere in the individual, but the individual is simply the basis for the formula. The grants all go to a central pool which is used at the discretion of the local authority. I think it right to give the local authorities a very large degree of discretion and to allow them to charge differential rents, and to use in calculating those differential rents, such factors as the number of children and the extreme poverty of the tenant. I only hope, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) has said, that there will be enough money for this purpose of rents.
Lastly, it seems to me that the local authorities are the proper bodies to administer this reform, and not any Government Department. They are the only people who have the requisite local knowledge and who are close up against the facts. There are various provisions in the Bill for compelling authorities to do their duty when they are negligent. One often finds those provisions in Bills of this kind, and I am not sure that they are very important, or very often put into force. The real compelling power is public opinion. I believe that in Scotland public opinion on this question is awake, and that no local authority will be allowed to regard slums like some society for the preservation of ancient monuments. In this matter I should like most respectfully to congratulate the Government on their change of mind. The De-rating Act of last year very largely increased the powers and added to the duties of Scottish county councils and town councils. When that Bill was debated in this House, hon. Members opposite declared that we were most grievously and unfairly adding to the already heavy burdens of these local
bodies. I am glad to find that our critics have changed their minds and that today they are prepared to add still further burdens to bodies whom last year they regarded with angry compassion.
The slum question is somewhat like the question of the rationalisation of industry, of which we hear so much today. Rationalisation is right and necessary, but it inevitably involves in its first stage a certain increase in unemployment. Slum clearance is right and necessary, but at the beginning it inevitably involves a certain housing shortage. Therefore, just as any scheme of rationalisation of industry must be accompanied by some emergency measure to provide for the employment of the dispossessed, so any scheme of slum clearance must be accompanied by a scheme for providing houses for the displaced. Construction and destruction must go together in this as in all public policies, and indeed in all forms of human life. It is because I think that the Bill faces this dual problem, too modestly perhaps, too tentatively, but still honestly, that I hope it will speedily be passed into law, and that, when it has become the law of the land, it will be administered with vigour and purpose.

Mr. MARCUS: I desire, in the first place, to congratulate the authors of this Bill on introducing what I regard as the most important Measure in Scottish domestic politics since this Government took office. The Bill constitutes the first frontal attack on the slum problem in Scotland. It is a complete departure from the old bureaucratic tradition. What I like about it most is, that it generously gives to the local authorities more power than they have enjoyed previously, and reduces the power of the central authority in London. That tendency is highly desirable if we are to grapple with the problem in the most practical way. One thing that impresses me most profoundly is the remarkable change of opinion in this country and in this House regarding the slum problem. Several years ago, it was the custom on the part of Members of the Conservative party to talk about anti-waste in connection with the financial requirements to deal with the housing problem. We were told that it was dangerous to spend too much money; but in the anti-waste campaign of a few years ago it was completely overlooked that a policy of that
kind would ultimately lead to colossal extravagance in a real sense. It involved enormous expenditure on public health, arid in an effort to remove the disease which slum dwelling houses, have created in this country, and it was, above all else, an effort at the wrong end. We of the Labour movement for many years now have challenged any such conception of public finance in relation to this problem.
Where do we stand to-day? This Bill recognises that we have to deal not merely with the question of absolute demolition, but with partial demolition. It was one of the weaknesses of past legislation, which this Bill seeks to remove, that if an area or a tenement was not uniformly bad enough, nothing could be done in existing legislation to deal with it. Partial demolition, once this Bill becomes law, will be attended to, and I have no doubt that in practice it will lead to a more rapid solution of the problem. One of the most important aspects of this Bill is the introduction of the principle of differential rents. It is a principle which has not been introduced into our legislation in years past, and it recognises, what we have always argued should be recognised in connection with houses, that men whose weekly wage is limited are incapable of paying excessive rents for their houses. It is useless to build houses for the working classes unless the rents of these houses are in consonance with the economic position of the prospective occupants. We have built 1,500,000 houses in the past few years, and it has been almost a calamity to have to acknowledge that the rents for the majority of these houses were outside the reach of vast masses of the working people of the country.
A rent of 12s. 6d. per week is beyond the pocket of the average working-man to-day and the tendency should be, as it appears to be, to get down towards a rent of 7s. sd. per week which will enable the working classes to enter these houses without any financial hardship. That will have to be done; and the principle of differential rents enables local authorities to make concessions to the lowest paid section of the working classes. These concessions will be made if this Bill becomes law. The result will be that you will have not merely a section of the
working classes entering these houses but a contented section. You will not have a sullen and discontented people, at times often an angry people, who feel that entering into a new house is not a help but a hindrance and even a hardship.
This problem, although we are now inclined to look upon it as one in which more power should be given to local authorities, is, after all, a national problem. The nation should he responsible for the burdens which erroneously and unfairly rest on the shoulders of the working classes, and on this question of rent it is difficult to express adequately how much one appreciates the concession which this Bill seeks to give to the working classes who will leave the slum areas and enter the new houses. I should like to make a reference to one aspect of the Bill which, in my judgment, has not been adequately dealt with. I refer to the question of the Rent Restriction Acts. I have had a fair amount of experience in the Edinburgh Courts in connection with my professional work with the ejectment of tenants. I have spent a good deal of my time during the past five or six years in defending tenants in the Edinburgh Sheriff Court who were in many cases ejected, not through any fault of their own but because they were unemployed.
My view is that if it is equitable, as the House appears to believe, to make concessions to the lower paid workers in this country in relation to houses under this Bill, it is much more equitable to make concessions to the occupants of these houses who will, through no fault of their own, become unemployed in the years to come, and there should be in this Bill some kind of protection which will enable the new tenants of these houses to feel that if the day should come when they lose their work, through no fault of their own, they are entitled to fall back on the principle embodied in the term differential rent, namely, to make people pay according to their ability and to give to people according to their need. The conception of giving according to the need is bound up with this Bill, and it is difficult to understand how one can come to the conclusion that a person who is unemployed is less in need than a person who is working. I hope some efforts will be made to incorporate a Clause which will bring the houses within the
protection of the Rent Restriction Acts. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) wants to know when the Rent Restriction Acts will be repealed or amended. Anyone who utters an opinion of that kind is totally out of touch with the hardships to which the working classes are exposed to-day.
It would be a calamity if we committed the profound error of attempting to interfere with the protective powers of the Rent Restriction Acts. It would not do. It would lead to social chaos. They have prevented social chaos in years past. I look upon them as Statutes which should be made applicable in relation to the present Bill. There is no reason why the principle of differential rents should not be carried to its logical conclusion, and I intend to press at the proper time for a Clause of that kind. Closely connected with the question of differential rents is the question of differential rates. The principle of differential rent will lead to concessions in the way of rates, but I hope it will not stop there. There is no reason why we should not penetrate the present rating system in Scotland which is worn out and almost overthrown by spreading over a much wider field the principle of differential rates. We recognise the principle of ability to pay as far as rates are concerned. The whole problem is closely connected with local Income Tax, which I will not pursue at the moment, but an opportunity is now given to the House to do an act of justice to many citizens in Scotland who have been called upon to bear a burden of rates in connection with houses and shops which is not a legitimate and equitable burden, and it will be a matter for the Committee stage to see that something is done to bring about more equity in relation to the question of rates
A year or two ago a Minister of Health in this House who now sits in another place expressed the view that a young married couple should be so much in love with one another that they should be happy in a one-roomed house. I am glad that such an expression is not heard today from Conservative benches. The one-roomed house is responsible, in my opinion, for more disease than almost anything else. It has been a death-trap for the infants of working class families. Statistics show beyond all doubt that the one-roomed house has been a curse to this nation and to this century, and we
challenge the conception of the desirability of the working classes living in a single room. It is almost incredible that there should be anyone at the present time who will tell us that a one-roomed house should be occupied by a young couple, and as is the case in some instances, a young couple with children. Just one personal word. I can say from personal experience what it means for a family of six to have to live in one room. It is largely that experience which brought me into the Labour party, and it is because I remember that experience and the many hardships to which it Exposes one that I welcome this Bill most heartily, and hope that by the time it becomes law it will be a much better Bill than it is at the moment.

Mr. TRAIN: So much has been said to-day and on the English Bill that I feel it is quite unnecessary for me to say very much. My only excuse for troubling the House is my personal experience in local Government, having been the convener of the housing committee in my own county since the beginning of the Act of 1919. I remember coming to this House in 1919 to see Scottish Members about the Addison Bill which was then before Parliament. The leader of the Socialist party in this House then was the present Secretary of State for Scotland. We were very anxious to get a proper definition of the meaning "working classes," those who would be eligible for the houses when they were built. We tried to get at a sum near £300 a year as the earnings, but I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State saying that if we made it £300 a year we should not house the miners of Scotland. We could not come to agreement, and the Bill went on. We administered that Bill, and managed to get for Scotland four-fifths of a penny rate for the local authorities, the balance to be carried by the Government. We all know what has been the result of the Addison scheme. We are all agreed that many people are occupying them who ought not to occupy them; hence the reason that there are still so many slums to be looked after.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this Bill. It does not please me in every detail, and I shall reserve most of what I have to say for the Committee stage; but it is an advance. All the wards of Lanark did not adopt the old slum clearance scheme.
The middle ward did; the lower ward did not. The middle ward in adopting the slum clearance scheme did something which cost the ratepayers a lot more money than would have been the case if they had worked away with the 1924 Act. The lower ward said: We will work the 1924 Act, but before we build any houses, we will make arrangements with the Scottish Board of Health to have houses suitable for the people who are in condemned houses and in houses on which there is a closing order. They at once proceeded to get the medical officer of health to tell them how many houses in the lower ward were unfit for human habitation, and they proceeded to build that exact number of houses. We have built them; and as far as slum clearance schemes are concerned, they are finished.
It is true that the local rate is 10d. in the £ for housing, but in reply to a question put by me the other day, as to the arrears of rent in the lower ward, the middle ward and the upper ward of Lanarkshire, respectively, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that there was only something like £260 of arrears of rents in the lower ward on nearly 1,200 houses which represent about 4s. 6d. per house. It may be said, "You did not build houses up to the standard to which you ought to have built." I disagree entirely. The Under-Secretary of State himself has agreed to almost the same principle as that which was agreed upon in the lower ward of Lanarkshire, in the case of part of his own constituency. We had 60 per cent. of houses with two apartments, kitchenette and bathroom; and he has now granted 40 per cent. in Kilsyth, as against 20 per cent. agreed upon some time ago. We are letting houses at something like 8s. 3d. including rates. It is true that the three apartment houses, of which there is 40 per cent., are being let at something like 10s. to people who have come out of the condemned houses. We have let the houses to people who were in need of houses, and for whom the houses were suitable, and that is the result. In the middle ward of Lanark the arrears of rent to-day are something like £1 per house. They have built 7,000 houses and have something like £7,000 of arrears. There again, the slum problem has been pretty well met.
It was admitted in 1919 at the Royal Commission—the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) knows all about it—that Lanarkshire was a pretty black spot, but Mr. John Miller, the county and district sanitary inspector in his annual report issued on Thursday last states that "the back of slumdom in Mid-Lanark has been broken." He points out that when the Housing Act of 1925 came into operation, there were more than 3,000 houses in the middle ward scheduled as unfit for human habitation and, since then, closing orders have been made in respect of 2,677 of these. More progress might have been made but for the difficulty of providing accommodation for those displaced, and 97 per cent. of the houses closed are of the one apartment and two apartment types. This problem would be easily solved if we could ask a lot of these people who are living in council houses in Lanarkshire, but who could easily afford to their own houses or erect their own houses, to leave the council houses to the people who are now in unsuitable houses.
It seems to me that there are one or two points in this Bill which will require examination. We have a proposal to assist slum clearance by giving a certain amount of money per person, but we have to reckon on the fact that a local authority, before it charges any rent, is giving £4 10s. and the local authority under this Measure is not getting off with anything better than it got off with under the Wheatley Act. Further, it is proposed to shift these people from one area to another and to put upon them the label of "slum clearance." I object to this herding of people into pens. Under the Addison scheme rents were charged comparable with the rents of other houses available in the same area. Then under the 1926 Act we got rents which were cheaper than the rents of the other houses. Now it is proposed to make a further rent which will differ entirely from the two I have mentioned, and, apparently, the people are to be divided into pens—class 1, class 2, class 3 and class 4—and we are going to label these children who are coming put of the slums, as "slum clearance" children. It is said, on some occasions, that we on these benches seek to set class against class but that has never been my experi-
ence. I was brought up at a board school, like many others on these benches, and there are just as many snobs among the children of the board school, as among other people to whom reference is often made in this connection.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the hon. Member speaking from personal experience?

Mr. TRAIN: I object to the segregation of people into these various classes. Another question is as to how the local authorities will regard these proposals. In Lanarkshire, as many hon. Members know, there are necessitous areas which are overburdened with rates as it is. The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Dickson) knows that in his area in one place the rates are 23s. in the £, and the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright) knows that there are rates in his area of 22s. in the £. Can we get these folk to adopt these slum clearance schemes when, already, they have rates of that kind? They are not getting any advantage under this Measure over what they were getting under the Wheatley scheme. They are still paying the £4 10s. and with a 10d. rate for housing. Are you going to get them to adopt this scheme? I submit, respectfully, to the Secretary of State that that is something which he will have to consider, because the local authorities, especially in the necessitous areas, are bearing as big a burden as they are fit to bear. There must be some way of giving them a grant for housing people according to the needs of the area and the need for slum clearance is as great in the necessitous areas as in the areas where the rates are not so high. I feel very strongly that this is a good Bill, as far as it goes, but that it does not go half far enough, and that it will require a tremendous amount of amendment during the Committee stage.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: We owe our thanks to the Secretary of State for Scotland for his terse and clear exposition of the rather complicated proposals in this Bill, which even those of us who are not, like the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train), experts on this subject, found very easy to follow. I think the right hon. Gentleman is also to be congratulated on the welcome which the Bill has received in
all parts of the House. It is indeed time that we did something to grapple with this terrible housing problem in Scotland. That 43 per cent. of our people in Scotland should be living in conditions in which they are crowded together, more than two to a room, is a reproach to us. It is made worse when we are told, at a time when the situation is so serious and when we have so many thousands of men out of work in the building trade, that the actual number of houses to be built in Scotland this year is only half the number which was built last year.
Many hon. Members have dealt and no doubt many others will deal with the difficult situation in the towns and the cities from their own personal experience, but I want to deal with the problem of the rural areas. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in a rather gloomy but forceful speech, referred to the problem which faced his constituents when, with inadequate incomes, they were moved from bad houses into good houses for which they had to pay higher rents. The hon. Member made a passing observation about the plans which we on these benches put forward at the last Election for countering unemployment. I suggest to him that if those plans had been carried out—assuming, as it must be assumed for the sake of argument, that they had been even moderately successful—they would have gone some way towards solving the problem to which he refers. They would have enabled large numbers of his constituents, not merely to increase their incomes, but, in doing so, to leave behind them assets of permanent value to the community.
It is, of course, quite true that this is only one aspect of the great social and economic problems with which our country is faced, and which call for the united and concentrated effort of men and women of good will in all parties and with all kinds of interests, if we are to solve them and pull the country through its difficulties. It is, however, a very important aspect, that a large number of men who are now out of work, and who are trying to subsist with their families on meagre unemployment benefit should be able to get good wages
by building good houses which will remain as permanent assets of value to future generations of Scotsmen.
In the country districts the problem is at least as urgent as it is in the towns, but, at any rate, we are without some of those difficulties to which the hon. Member for Gorbals referred. If you give a farm servant's family a good house, there is no difficulty about furniture, and you immediately improve the whole condition of that family and improve the prospects of the children. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), in a very interesting speech, said that there was no overcrowding in the countryside. It depends on how you look at it. It is true that there is not overcrowding, in the sense that there are too many people. On the contrary, we are suffering, not only in the Lowlands but even worse in the Highlands, from the evils of depopulation. But certainly there are houses in which there is terrible overcrowding, and as to which there is urgent need for an improvement of the conditions. I feel that there is substance in a point which has already been raised in this Debate and to which, I hope, the Under-Secretary of State will reply. That is the point that the country districts are not, under this Bill, getting an advantage proportionate to that which they received under the Wheatley Act. There may be an answer to that point, though I do not see it at the moment, and the object of debate is to raise these questions and to get answers, if there are answers to them. Under the Wheatley Act, the towns receive the subsidy of £9 and the rural districts a subsidy of £12 10s., or about 35 per cent. more. Under this Bill 50s. is to be paid in the cities and 65s. in the country districts which represents a much smaller difference in favour of the latter.
It is true that the Wheatley Act remains in operation, but I submit that, even with the additional subsidy given to the rural districts under the Wheatley Act, it has not been as effective in the country districts as in the towns. The country districts need at least as great an advantage proportionately under this Bill as that which they enjoyed under the Wheatley Act. I would like to see, at least, the proportions in the Wheatley
Act preserved in the subsidies which are to be granted under this Bill, and I shall hear with great interest any observations which the Under-Secretary may have to make on that point. One of the best Housing Acts, so far as the country districts of Scotland are concerned, is an Act which is not really a Housing Act at all. I mean the Smallholders Act of 1911, under which enormous strides have been made in dealing with the housing problem on small holdings, and I cannot help feeling that one of the strongest weapons which we could forge for the solution of the housing question of smallholders and farm servants would be to enlarge the area of those Land Acts.
I want to refer also to the question of the small burghs in Scotland, which is a very important aspect of the case, where the conditions are really quite different from those which obtain either in the purely country districts or in the big cities. The one thing that I think must strike anyone who goes to most of these small burghs all over Scotland is that the housing is very largely going on in the wrong place. I dare say it is true to some extent in the big cities also, but in these small burghs you find awful conditions in one part of the town, where the poorer people are accustomed to live, because it is near their work, near their fishing, near the harbour. and where they will not leave. We find nothing going on there except decay and the problem getting worse, the housing conditions getting worse, people clinging on in houses which have been condemned as insanitary; and then we go to the new town, where the housing is not so bad, and there you find new houses going up, not for the poor people—for one thing, the poor people will not leave, and the rents are unsuitable—but for the fairly well-off people, policemen and others, and people who do not belong to the burgh, but who are coining in to spend their declining years from some place in the countryside.
Of course, the difficulty there is the rent, the difficulty of putting up a house at a rent which these poorer people can pay, and there we come back to the problem which was stated by the hon. Member for Gorbals. There it [...]s of vital importance to have regard to the other, more fundamental, aspect of this question, and that is the importance of giving
a stimulus to those industries on which these people depend for their livelihood, such as agriculture, fishing, and so on. That is a real difficulty at the present time, that if you go to the small burghs you will find hundreds of people living in horrible conditions, and far from things having improved, they are getting worse. You will find the financial effort of which the local community is capable, or such effort as it is putting forth, with the State assistance, being directed into putting up houses which are doing nothing to solve this urgent and terrible problem.
Under this Bill grants are to be proportionate to the size of the family. I welcome this proposal. I think it a good proposal. As to the question of a block grant, raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), I should have thought a block grant was a grant given for a number of varied services. This is a contribution made for a particular service. Instead of being based in relation to the percentage cost of the scheme, it is in relation to the number of people rehoused, but I do not want to chop logic on this point with the hon. and gallant Member. Whatever the name of the grant may be, whether it is a block grant or a percentage grant, it does not matter very much. The point is that it should be an adequate grant. What are the facts about that?
The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, in his extraordinarily interesting analysis of this Bill, said that under the Bill the capital value of this subsidy would be £43 per person, and under the Chamberlain slum scheme he said, quoting figures given by the representative of the Government in the Debate on the English Bill, the capital value of the subsidy amounted to £160 per house. If, therefore, you have a family of four, it seems to me that under this Bill you will be £12 better off per house. The hon. and gallant Member said £8, but I should have thought it was £12. Now here it seems to me is a very important point from the point of view of these small burghs. The hon. and gallant Member quoted figures showing that, in some of these large schemes in Glasgow, the average number per family rehoused was less than four. I am afraid that if that is true in Glasgow, it will he still more true in many of these small burghs, where young men and women go
away so much and where the fishing and agricultural industries are so depressed at the present time. In these small rural burghs, I am afraid that the average number in the family may work out to be even less than four—at any rate that the amount of advantage under this Bill as compared with the slum clearance Act of 1924 may prove to be very small. That is a point which I wish to put to the Under-Secretary of State, and I hope he may be able to give us some satisfactory reassurance on that point.
In conclusion, I should like to say one word about the local authorities. I agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend and by other speakers in all parts of the House about the need of seeing that the powers given in this Bill are used and that the Measure is worked for what it is worth, but at the same time, especially when we are dealing with the Financial Resolution, as we shall do later, let us bear in mind some of the difficulties of the local authorities and especially of the small burghs to which I have alluded. The yield of a penny rate in those burghs is very small. In one that I have in mind it is only between £55 and £60, and it makes it very difficult to go in for any very large, progressive scheme of housing on that basis. Then there is the deplorably low rate of earnings of the people, and particularly those engaged in the fishing industry, at the present time. I therefore attach the utmost importance to anything which the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us about the way in which this block grant will work.
The financial side of this scheme seems to be vital. It is the petrol for the machine, because, however much compulsion you bring to bear upon a local authority, if its penny rate only yields £55 or £60, you will not get very many houses. I agree with a previous speaker in expressing the hope that the grants will be paid from the introduction of the Bill. A suitable precedent has been quoted for that, and I hope the Government will be able to make that concession. I am sure this Bill will receive the support of all parties in the House in its passage through the House, and, more than that, I am sure that every Scotsman and Scotswoman who values the good name of his country and is anxious to do something to remove this
reproach from our civilisation at the present time will do his best, outside the House too, to see that the utmost use is made of its provisions.

Miss LEE: I gladly respond to the last remark expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), in appealing to our Scottish patriotism to do out utmost in the solution of our Scottish housing problem. I believe that to that end, so far, one necessary point has not been brought out in this Debate. There has been no attempt made to minimise the extent or the gravity of our slum problem, but it still remains for someone to bring into clear relief the relative gravity of that problem when compared with the situation in England, because we cannot judge of the value of the remedy which is put before us in this Bill until we are perfectly definite as to the nature and extent of the disease. I was surprised in going into this matter, to find how great the gulf is between English bad housing conditions and Scottish bad housing conditions, and I think the extent of that gulf must be the measure of the additional assistance for which Scottish Members are entitled to ask, in dealing with our national problem.
On the last occasion when I spoke in this House, I mentioned that 52 per cent. of our Scottish houses were single-apartment or two-apartment houses, whereas only 5 per cent. of English houses were one or two-apartment houses. After I had spoken, my figures were challenged, and I therefore went carefully once more into this aspect of the subject. I found that no less than half the population of Scotland live in one or two-roomed houses; compared with that, only one-tenth of the population of England is similarly housed, and if we exclude London, the percentage is brought down to one-sixteenth. But a still more convincing and arresting comparison is arrived at if we take the mining counties of Northumberland and Durham in England and compare them with the mining county of Lanarkshire in Scotland, because there we discover that, while in Northumberland and Durham 5 per cent. of the inhabitants are living in one-apartment houses, there is no less than 18 per cent. of the inhabitants of Lanarkshire so housed. For two-apartment
rooms, the comparison is 22 per cent. in Northumberland and Durham and 50 per cent. in Lanarkshire. For four-apartment houses, you have the other side, shown; you have 25 per cent. of four-roomed houses in Northumberland and Durham and only 6 per cent. in Lanarkshire.
It can easily be calculated from these figures that in order to bring our Scottish standard of housing into line with the present English standard of housing —I am not judging on the immense improvement that English Members expect to see once that Bill has been brought into force—we find that no less than 500,000 one and two-roomed houses in Scotland would have to be demolished, or reconditioned, or replaced by three, four, five, and six-roomed houses, and that the cost of such an alteration would be no less than £1,000,000 per annum for 20 years. I stress that figure, because we turn now to the financial provisions in the Bill, and we are told that the Exchequer grant for rehousing 20,000 people in Scotland is anticipated to be £55,000 for 40 years. I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in replying, could indicate how many 20,000 people he hopes to rehouse, and how far the provisions of this Bill will go even towards bringing our Scottish standard of housing up to the present English standard.
I will now pass from the comparative point and come to the actual situation. I found myself rather surprised by a remark made by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train), who is no longer in his place. He said that in Lanarkshire—or Mid-Lanarkshire to be perfectly accurate—the back of the slum problem had been broken. I differ very radically from him in what we consider the slum 7.0 p.m. problem, because we find that in the Middle Ward of Lanark there are 215 persons for every 100 rooms. In my own constituency they rise to the figure of 246 persons for 100 rooms in the Shotts area, which means that I am in the position of finding Scotland very seriously worse than England, finding the county of Lanark below the average of Scotland, and finding part of my own constituency even below the average for Lanark. Throughout Scotland, we have 10 per cent of the population living more than four persons per room. If we con-
fine ourselves to Glasgow and Lanarkshire, which contain three-fourths of the population, we find that practically half of our houses require to be swept away and replaced by modern up-to-date houses.
Let us consider how far previous Acts have gone towards dealing with this slum problem. There have been many admirable attempts, but the attempts, while admirable in themselves, have the fault which I am afraid may become apparent in this Bill, that in relation to the problem they are tackling they are relatively ineffective. I go back 60 years to a housing census in 1861 and I find that in that year throughout Scotland there were 1,050,000 living more than three persons per room. I go on 60 years, and I allow all the improvements that have come about from the beneficent rule of Conservative and Liberal Governments, and I discover that in 1921 we still had more than 1,000,000 people in Scotland living three persons per room. The situation since then has not been materially changed for the very poorest in the slums.
We come down to the present Bill, and we must see how far it is going to deal with the actual slum dweller and how far it is going to repeat the faults of previous Measures in regulating the needs of the slum population, although helping the other sections of the community who, I agree, also deserve to have their needs met but can pay a higher rent. I am more than satisfied with one part of the Bill in that it makes it a condition of grants that the people living in slums must be re-housed. Although I was slightly alarmed by the analysis the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) made as to what the financial terms of those grants might be even on that basis, I can only hope that he was inaccurate in assuming that the financial provisions of the Bill are not better than those existing at present. I believe the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary, if that danger proves real, will be very glad of the co-operation of hon. Members opposite to remedy it, and I would suggest that a practical way of remedying it would be to assume that, in 100 houses you propose building, the grant should be on a minimum of five persons per house.
Thus, if you were re-housing more than five per house, you would get the additional increment, but, if the fears of the right hon. Gentleman were realised, and you found your figure falling to four, or less than four, you would then be in a position of guaranteeing a substantial difference compared with the present position.
I would stress what the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has already so eloquently placed before the House, that our problem is not simply a problem of re-housing slum dwellers, or any other type of Scottish citizens; our problem is essentially a poverty problem, and, because it is a poverty problem, the very heart of this present Measure, the touchstone that will decide whether it is useful or not, the touchstone as to whether it brings real advantages to the people for whom it has been framed, is what the rents are going to be? As a woman, it has filled me with surprise that although speaker after speaker, not only on this Bill but also on the English Bill, have talked on the subject, inside the subject, all round the subject, and have gone into the most abstruse calculations on the financial side of this Measure, no one so far as I have been able to discover, has answered the very simple question: what is going to be the rent of these houses once they are built? I took very considerable comfort from the Bill when first I read it, because it assures us definitely that the rents are going to be lower than those prevailing at present. I would plead with those responsible for the Bill, to see that they are not only definitely lower but substantially lower, and also to see if, at the same time, we cannot bring the rent relief which is equally needed by many working-class people already housed in new houses and paying rents far in advance of their means.
Rents bring me to an interesting and enterprising innovation made by the present Government on this subject, the question of differential rents. It is a good, sound, Socialist principle to seek to give houses in accordance with the ability of the people to pay and to give special consideration to families where there are many young children. I am, however, rather puzzled and undecided an one particular aspect of this matter. Suppose that you have two mothers in
Scotland, each with an income of £3 per week, and each with three children to provide for. Suppose one of those mothers has already placed her family in a house which is not in a slum clearance area, which is not in an improvement area, and which is not a solitary insanitary house. Is that mother going to be left entirely unaided while, we help another woman with exactly the same needs and exactly the same responsibilities and with all the same external circumstances—we cannot presume to judge all the circumstances—who, with her family, has drifted into a definitely slum area? There is a type of woman who is one of my heroines. In spite of all the poverty and everything that has been facing us in the West of Scotland, she has been trying to keep a bold face on her difficulties, has been doing her very best, has been making immense sacrifices, of little pleasures, of little luxuries, and of many necessities, because she realises the supreme importance, even within her limited standard, of giving her family the best house possible. I want that woman to be helped, to be given the advantage of differential rents, particularly if she has young children, but I am extremely puzzled as to how we can justly and honestly apply those differential rents if we are going to draw a dividing line which differentiates against the woman who has been struggling so hard and, more than that, which will ask that woman, through adding to her rates, to contribute to the cheaper houses that the woman in the slum area is getting.
I have given a considerable amount of thought and attention to this problem, and I do not see how a Socialist Government—although we may have to temporise because of the immediate circumstances—can finally solve this problem unless we are to face up as boldly as the hon. Member for Gorbals faced up to the poverty aspect and face up to the necessities of both the slum dweller and the non-slum dweller and devise some Measure to grapple adequately with both those aspects of the problem. It ought not to be a difficult problem, for Members on this side of the House, and for a growing number of Members on the Liberal benches to decide what that solution is to be. We have already had a committee of the Trade Union Congress
and the Labour party which, by nine to three, has reported in favour of schemes of family allowances, not simply for a differential rent for special people, not even the rent rebates of the Liberal party for the slum dweller, out family allowances that would be given in respect of children of all parents below Income Tax level. We could thereby answer the difficulties of the hon. Member for Gorbals, and also ensure that we went ahead with a bold and comprehensive building scheme and that those people who went into those houses would do so happily and without too great a financial burden.
Members will reply that that is all very well, but it would cost too much. The particular scheme which I would like to see as complementary to this housing Bill is estimated to cost £70,000,000. But, as a nation, we are spending £300,000,000, in round figures, on drink, £250,000,000 on gambling, and £120,000,000 on tobacco. If my arithmetic is correct, that is £60,000,000 in all. I do not think a nation that can spend £670,000,000 in such a way can evade its responsibilities to the children of the nation even in asking for a scheme like this costing £[...]0,000,000, a big sum in itself but only 4d. or 5d. in the £ of the national income. We are glad and grateful that those responsible for the Bill are tackling in a more realistic fashion than has ever been done before this particular problem, but we would like the provisions to be broadened, so that there would not be this unfair differentiation between the working-class mother whose family is in the slum, and the mother whose family is outside the slum.
I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) and I am not in agreement with the solution which he put forward for this particular problem, but he did state a real difficulty when he said that in Lanarkshire we have to face up to the fact that we have already enormous rates, and, although in this Bill more generous provision will be given to the local authorities than was ever given before, the rates will be affected by any new houses that are built. Therefore we are likely to find, if our schemes are not completely torpedoed, that they may be
much smaller in extent and much less in general effectiveness than they would have been if the cost had been entirely borne from the national Exchequer.
I have no desire to indulge in anything that would be in the nature of carping criticism. I gladly give thanks to the Secretary of State for Scotland and those associated with him for the good points of this Bill so far as it goes, but I do not think we are doing a service to our party or to the people of Scotland if on all sides of the House we do not keep on stressing the tremendous relative gravity of our Scottish housing problem, and therefore the need of welcoming the present Bill as a first instalment, but also pressing for complementary and successive legislation that may make it very much broader and more general in its aspects.
There is a final issue to which I would like to refer. I have heard hon. Members talk of the new houses that will be built in the agricultural areas. I have certain agricultural districts in my constituency, and I welcome the help that will be given to the rural areas as well as to the mining villages, not only because it will give the ploughman and the miner a better house, but because it will increase his social freedom by helping him to get rid of the tied cottage which goes along with his job. While fully and painfully realising the limitations of the Measure, I congratulate the Government on going further and doing more than any previous Government has ever dared to do, and I only hope that this will be the first of a number of Measures that will eventually lead us to a complete solution of our slum problem, and, side by side with that, of our entire poverty problem.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: This subject of the housing of our people is one which naturally must be of interest to every Member of the House. We are often taunted on this side of the House about what we have not done. One can well understand that there have been no taunts on this occasion, for our party really first brought this matter of the housing of the people before the nation. The hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee), in her interesting speech, said that the only point in this Bill which was really Socialistic was the differentiation of rent. That is the one thing about this Bill which seems to me to be totally opposed to the usual
Socialistic principles. I am not carping about that; I only want to congratulate the Government on having seen the folly of their principles and come round to the principles which have been laid down by the older parties. That is very cheering. I am rather unhappy about that part of the Bill which refers to the differentiation of rent. The hon. Member for North Lanark put the point very clearly in the illustration which she gave of the two women.
Our party are not going to oppose the Bill. I do not quite agree with the leaders in this decision, for I think that it is a pity that we do not make a little more opposition to the Bill. Therefore, I shall take a line of my own. One must approach the matter with certain ideas in one's mind. It is for that reason that I am rather opposed to the principle of the Bill. We must not forget that this is really a housing Bill; it mentions slum clearance, but the main part of the Bill deals with housing. We must not forget also that the slum clearance part of it applies to the country districts as well as to the towns.
There are two things that we must keep in mind in dealing with housing. First we must make certain that any assistance to be given by the State must be apportioned fairly as between the urban and rural areas. It is only fair that all sections of the community should benefit by it. I fear that the tendency in this Bill will be to give financial assistance more to the urban than to the rural areas. Under Clause 19, assistance is to be given to local authorities to carry out housing schemes. In the rural districts it is practically impossible in many cases for a local authority to have a housing scheme and, therefore, to get the benefit of these provisions. There are scattered cottages throughout the country, and we want to see them improved. I do not agree that the tied cottages are bad, but I would like to see them better built. No assistance can be given to these scattered cottages except under a housing scheme. If an authority says that a cottage must be reconditioned, the burden will fall on the owner of the cottage. If he has to pull it down and rebuild it, that again will fall on him. The whole burden of rehousing, therefore, will fall on the owners, who will not get any assistance from the State under this Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There is an existing Act, the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, under which they can give assistance.

Mr. SMITH: I was going to suggest that there should be some connection between this Bill and that Housing Act, for which my party were responsible. If a local authority says to the owner of a cottage that it is insanitary and must be reconditioned, the owner ought to be able to go to the local authority and get the assistance of the 1926 Act. I suggest that the Government should make it compulsory that, where a local authority make an order for closing or reconditioning, that authority should at least have a scheme under the 1926 Act, so that the owner could apply under that scheme for assistance. When we come to the question of slum clearance and new houses, we ought to see that the improvements that we desire in our housing are effected in the cheapest possible manner. Under this Bill, as I see it, no State assistance is given towards reconditioning. That is a great mistake, because if we want to overcome the slum problem, we must get houses put into proper order. I would like, on the question of reconditioning, to quote the report of a committee which was set up in 1921 to go into the question of the cost of working-class houses. They made a strong statement with regard to reconditioning. They said:
The experience of Edinburgh is that insanitary property in the older parts of the town can be converted into serviceable houses at approximately half the cost of new houses.
Under this Bill, no assistance can be given to local authorities for reconditioning. It is only for new houses that money can be obtained from the State. All the assistance that is given otherwise will come out of the rates. It is rather a pity that the Government have not approached this question on the lines of seeing what they can do by means of re-conditioning. If they had done so, it would have been a much cheaper way of dealing with the matter. The differentiation of rent is a very bad principle, because it is unfair that a person who does not live in a slum, and who is in exactly the same circumstances as a person who is living in a slum, should not get assistance in the way of rent relief. Power is given in the English Bill to build two-roomed houses if necessary. It rests
entirely with the local authority to decide whether two-roomed houses are necessary. It seems a pity that we should not have the same power in the Scottish Bill. There are many people who do not want a large house, and we have to meet the needs of such people as much as the needs of the people who require larger houses. I hope that the Government will consider whether they cannot do something to help the rural districts. The financial benefits that can be obtained under the Bill are not fairly distributed, and the rural areas will not get their fair share. It cannot be said that the rural areas are better off than the urban. Why therefore should the unfortunate parish council have to be taxed in order to provide houses for those in towns? Their conditions are no better. I lope that a larger portion of financial assistance will be handed over to the rural areas.

Mr. BARR: I welcome this opportunity of speaking on the Bill, in the first place because I was a member of the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland, to which a friendly reference has been made, and in the second place because, like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I represent a district where this problem is very acute. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) claimed that he had in his constituency possibly the worst slums in Glasgow, or even in the whole of Scotland. I do not suppose any of us desire to enter into rivalry with him on such an unenviable point, but to show how acute and extensive this problem is I would call attention to a Report of the Chief Inspector of the Scottish Board of Health, made five years ago, on 989 houses in my constituency. They all had this feature in common, that not one of them had a water supply of its own.
I do not wish to harry the feelings of hon. Members by going through a description of the various groups of houses—slum areas as they indeed were —that were reported upon. The roofs were described as leaking; the walls were damp; they were unplastered; for show, paper had been put upon the bare stone wall; in many cases the windows, owing to their situation, would admit neither light not ventilation; the floor was often below the level of the ground and was described as rotten and
in holes; and the courts round which these houses were grouped were spoken of as filthy beyond description. Many of these groups of houses had no sanitary convenience of any kind whatever; in the case of some of them there was a very primitive sanitary convenience, though in most cases even this was in very bad order indeed. In one of these squares 18 houses were dependent for water supply upon one stand-pipe, one spigot as we call it in Scotland; in another case 35 houses round a square were dependent on one stand-pipe; in two cases 36; in another case 40; and in the worst case of all there were 45 houses all dependent on one stand-pipe. It is fair to say that one or two of the worst of these slums have since been removed; but I would like to read the words in which the inspector sums up his conclusions:
I cannot understand how these buildings have been permitted to be occupied. They are not even suitable for housing animals, let alone human beings.
I do not think anyone would consider that reconditioning could be of any use there, and I am equally certain that it would be quite as futile in many of the cases spoken of by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith). This chief inspector went on to say that nothing would satisfy except heroic remedies. I am very pleased that the Government have made a beginning here —I will not say more—with a heroic remedy. It is only the beginning, and further Measures will need to follow before the slum problem is removed, but I am glad they have summoned their courage to bring in this, so far as it goes, heroic Measure.
Of course some progress has been made already, as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) indicated. A considerable amount of progress has been made in my own constituency, and I pay this tribute to our town council, that members of all parties on it are agreed that they must go forward in this matter; but it is not easy, because of the economic conditions, to get the slum dwellers to move. There is the difficulty of the rent. In a slum clearance scheme in my own constituency 69 families were removed, but within six months, for economic reasons in the main, 41 were in arrears with rent. Therefore, I welcome the new financial provisions in this
Bill; they may have to be modified and improved, but they give some hope that these slum dwellers will get houses at a rent which they can pay.
I am glad to know, also, that the Bill deals not only with slum clearances, but with the problem of overcrowding, to some extent. In England the Registrar-General counts it as overcrowding if there is an average of more than two persons to a room. In my constituency only 30.8 per cent. of the people are living not more than two to a room; there are 24.7 per cent. living two and not more than three to a room; 20.4 per cent. living three and not more than four to a room; and no fewer than 24.1 per cent., almost one-fourth of all the people I represent, are living on an average of more than four to a room. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) indicated the housing conditions in small burghs. I not only emphasise what he said, but the evidence given to us on the Royal Commission showed that there is hardly a town in Scotland, hardly a capital of a county, which has not its slums and its housing problem. There is hardly a slimmer resort, however widely advertised, but has its back street. I will take the capital of a county in the south of Scotland, the representative of which is present here. Evidence was given to us that notwithstanding the beauty of that town, which is called, "The Queen of the South," there were back lanes which, in the words of one of the witnesses, were "a disgrace to humanity." They had continued from the time of Robert Burns, and still bear the names that are found in his letters—Beehive Close and others.

Dr. HUNTER: I would like to inform the hon. Member that nearly all have been removed.

Mr. BARR: I was going to make that qualification, as I did in the case of my constituency; and I make the same qualification in the case of another town to which I am proceeding. In a town which is the capital of a county, in the far north of Scotland, people are living in portions of that town at the rate of 816 to the acre. In the case of one other town I will read what was said of it by the representatives of the Churches who gave evidence to us:
One of the things that astonished us most in our investigations was the discovery that whole streets of houses in the city were without the most elementary of sanitary conveniences. There is one tenement I know of where there are 22 tenants and there is not a single sanitary convenience in the whole place.
I am not sure that that state of affairs also has not been remedied; but those were the conditions prevailing not very long ago and similar conditions prevail at the present time. What has obtained in the past and still to a large extent obtains is almost incredible, absolutely indescribable.
I have three special reasons for giving full support to this Measure. I support it first on the grounds of national economy. The Minister of Health, speaking the other night, quoted the words of John Bright:
The nation in every country dwells in the cottage.
Because it suits my purpose I would like to complete that beautiful and noble quotation:
And unless the beauty of your legislation and the excellence of your statesmanship are impressed on the feelings and conditions of the people there, rely upon it you have yet to learn the duties of Government.
I rejoice to think that in a new way we are beginning to learn the duties of Government. We are laying the foundations of a real national economy. Dr. Baxter Wilson and others who have investigated slums have shown, from the number of people there living on charity and dependent on public funds, how such slums are a real loss in every sense; that there is nothing more uneconomical than the continuance of slums and nothing more economic for the nation than to remove slums. Sir Kiffin Taylor, the chairman of the Liverpool Corporation Housing Committee, gave evidence before the Royal Commission and this is what he said:
Bad housing conditions are responsible for evils which are costing the country millions of money in workhouses, asylums, hospitals, infirmaries, reformatories and prisons. The remedy for this state of things, a remedy advocated by every party in this State, is that financial aid should he applied by the State or the municipality or both, on the ground that as a mere matter of business such financial aid would prove an economy.
We are only at the beginning of this lucrative expenditure to which the State is called. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) said this Bill was only a step and not a stride. We do not know in what commitments the Exchequer will be involved. During the term of the late Government I put a question to the then Secretary of State for Scotland as to the amount of subsidy that had been paid in Scotland, and the whole national expenditure for housing in the 10 years from 1919 to the 1st October, 1928. I find that the total national expenditure on housing subsidies for those 10 years under all schemes was £8,268,000. I understand that the cost of the "Hood" battleship is £9,000,000, which is more than has been spent by this nation on housing subsidies in the last 10 years. Therefore, we should not grudge this expenditure, and we should welcome every movement for the reduction of expenditure on armaments and for increasing the expenditure on our social services, because that form of expenditure is real economy and a real gain to the nation.
My second reason for supporting this Bill is that it is in the interests of public health. On this point, I wi]l give one illustration. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Marcus) mentioned the subject of mortality in slum areas. During the proceedings of the Royal Commission on housing there was one figure given which I shall never forget. It was given by Dr. Chalmers, the Medical Officer of Health to the City of Glasgow, in which he said, taking boys under five years of age:
The mortality for boys living in a one-roomed house was 40.56; in a two-roomed house 30.2; in a three-roomed house 17.9; and in a four-roomed house 10.27.
My third reason for giving a full support to this Measure is that I believe it is in the interests of the moral and social welfare of the people. In this respect I would like to quote the words of Lord Shaftesbury, in which he said:
Until the housing conditions are reformed and christianised all hope of the moral and social elevation of the people is utterly vain.
Those words put the case very strongly. It must be nearly 100 years since Lord Shaftesbury gave utterance to those words, and yet very little has been done to remove this evil since that time. Why
has progress in regard to this problem been so slow in Scotland? For the simple reason that people did not believe in Lord Shaftesbary's method. That may be to our credit or otherwise, but in Scotland we believe very strictly that character is everything and environment nothing. We often hear people say, "What is the good of removing slum dwellers, because they will take their surroundings with them, and they will turn your new houses into a pig-sty." My own father kept the most beautiful and commodious pig-sties in all the countryside, and one result of that was that his pigs were as clean as any in the whole area. Even a pig responds to its surroundings, and much more does a human being. Therefore, we need to emphasise the value of the environment of people, and the great benefit that comes to them morally, socially, and spiritually from such a removal as is proposed in this Bill.
People can live clean and noble lives in the very worst surroundings. I know something of the moral heroism of the poor who often live clean and pure lives in the worst conditions, but that is a form of heroism that should not be asked of any man or woman in a civilised, not to say a Christian community. When we provide better homes for the people we at once provide better people for the homes. I wish that the church would realise this. Dr. Thorold Rogers says in his "Six Centuries of Work and Wages" that it was the better conditions and new hopes of the working people in the eighteenth century that gave the Wesleys their spiritual opportunity; and in my opinion this Measure and those that will succeed it will offer an opportunity for the opening of new avenues not only for material building, but for moral, social and spiritual uplifting. I see a new door of hope opening for these people. It is only ajar now, but it will need to be opened mare widely. I will close by a reference to what fell from the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities, who made a reference to John Bright and a famous speech which that statesman made. I would like to correct the hon. Member on one small point. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities said that the speech he quoted was delivered by John Bright in 1884, but it was delivered in 1883. I was
present, and therefore I know, and the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities was not present in 1883. I well remember the closing passage of that speech, in which he dealt with the slum conditions of Glasgow, and he said:
These things would not always be, and the sun would yet arise on the dark slums of our cities. The poor were not doomed to have their expectations always disappointed.
He crowned that magnificent passage by quoting from the Book of Psalms, chapter 9, the 18th verse:
For the needy shall not alway be forgotten: the expectation of the poor shall not perish for ever.

Sir PATRICK FORD: As the representative of an urban consistuency in which some of the areas might be described as at least depressing, I want to add my tribute to the line and the courage with which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has taken up this question. I would also like to include in my commendation the remarkable and eloquent speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee). After all, we are dealing with a great poverty question, and that fact was emphasised by the hon. Member for Gorbels and supplemented by the hon. Lady opposite when she said that we had to think of the rents in proportion to what the people could afford to pay. I was astonished at the last election to find such a large number of genuine criticisms by working people who, notwithstanding the efforts of successive Governments, still found it impossible to get suitable accommodation at rents which they could afford to pay, and at a rent which would enable a man to bring up his wife and family and provide for them the necessities of life.
One of the great difficulties which has arisen in regard to this matter is the heavy cost of the houses which have been built. They have not been erected in the most economical way. When I speak of economy I do not suggest that the work should be stamped, but that a different type of home might be built and I am glad that more freedom is being given to local authorities in this Bill to deal with this matter, and more especially to deal with the provision of alternative accommodation in regard to which it appears that they can do pretty well as
they like. I notice, however, that they are not to be allowed to put up two-roomed houses, and I think that is a mistake. When I speak of two-roomed houses I allude more particularly to subdivided buildings which are divided into two-roomed houses. My point is that a great deal of the cost of alternative accommodation has been due to the fact that the wrong type of houses have been chosen, because many of them are self-contained. They have each the four walls and roofing, and there is a good deal of additional cost in the way of special connection of drainage and fittings, and all that has to be borne by the rent charged. I know that there are two-storey houses in Edinburgh, and you get four houses in a block of two storeys with an outside staircase. I am aware that that type of house can be let at a cheaper rent. I know that even such houses cannot be provided at the present time at an economic rent, hut they would be nearer it and, further, I think it would be unwise to deprive these people, who at the present time find great difficulty in keeping body and soul together, of the opportunity of living in two-roomed houses.
The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) seems to have been converted to my point of view on this question, because he said that undoubtedly the great thing that would tend towards a solution of the housing problem would be the ability of people to pay economic rents, and that that state of things could only be brought about by a great revival of the productivity of the industries of this country. I hope that the Government, in giving no more than these subsidies out of the Treasury, are looking ahead to a revival of trade and industry, when the happy inhabitants of these houses would be able to pay an economic rent, and then we could provide the best style of houses for the accommodation of the people, and they would also have enough money left to provide themselves not only with the necessities but also with the luxuries of life. I appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and hope he will agree with me when I say that one of the best ways of supplementing this solution of the housing problem is for him to change his fiscal policy, and in that way give more encouragement to our in-
dustries at home by the protection of safeguarding.

Duchess of ATHOLL: The speeches which have been made on this side of the House have shown how fully we realise the gravity of the housing problem, more particularly in connection with slums. We have been very interested in some of the speeches which have been made on the opposite side of the House, particularly the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I should like to say to the hon. Member that a recent visit which I paid to the slums in one of our big Scottish cities brought forcibly before me the necessity of doing everything possible to clear the people out of those terrible dwellings. I should also like to say to the House, remembering as I do the text of the hon. Members speech, that I cannot help feeling that though there may be in the slums many people who have a difficulty in meeting the rents of the improved houses and to whom furniture may be a difficulty —that makes it an urgent question to get houses built at the lowest possible price and at rents which they can afford to pay—I was amazed during a visit which I subsequently paid to a new housing area to which people in another part of the slums of the city had recently been removed, at the excellence and taste of their furniture. One of the most striking impressions I received from my visit was of the excellence of their furniture, and with what taste it had been 8.0 p.m. chosen. The only exception was that of a widow who was inhabiting a house of three or four rooms, and she had not been able to provide herself with carpets and furniture such as I found in the other houses. Therefore, I suggest that among the slum dwellers to-day there are people who, if better houses had been plentiful, would have been inhabiting them, and while it is for us to get houses built and to do what we can to meet the poorer people with rent, do not let us think it is not worth while clearing the slums because there is a great deal of unemployment and poverty in the country. It is because we recognise so fully the gravity of this problem that we are ready to support any Bill that offers to take us a step further, and therefore we are not going to put difficulties in the way of this Bill securing a Second
Reading, though we do see here and there in the wording of Clauses indications of that "new despotism" the existence of which has lately been impressed upon us by a legal authority, and which is the subject of investigation by a Committee set up by the Government. Such indications will demand careful examination and consideration in Committee, to see that while every step is taken that can be taken to assist in slum clearances, no injustice is done.
I cannot help feeling that the part of the Bill which deals with single houses shows that the Government have not fully grasped all sides of the problem. We find, for instance, that Clause 11 empowers the local authority to require the owner of a house which is unfit for habitation to execute whatever works the local authority considers to be necessary, and if the owner does not do this immediately, the local authority under Clause 12 is empowered to execute the works and to charge the owner on the rent of the house. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 says that the cost of these improvements spread over 30 years may even be recovered from the occupier, and deducted by him from the rent of the house. It seems clear from the wording of that Clause that the Government are of opinion that the rents of the houses are sufficient to pay for the cost not merely of the repairs, but of such reconstruction as may be necessary to put them in a proper state for habitation. They evidently consider that the rents are large enough to meet the cost of repairs and to Leave some balance over. I venture to say that such a suggestion shows how little they have grasped the low level of rents of working-class houses in the rural areas of Scotland. Admittedly the slum dweller has often to pay rents out of all proportion to the amenities that he enjoys, but when we come to rural areas we find rents at a different level. I doubt if Members representing town constituencies realise how much lower these rents are. On one rural estate I know with a large number of houses 50 per cent. of the houses let are rented at less than £5 a year.

Mr. McKINLAY: What are the ages of these houses?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I agree that they are old houses. I do not say that there are many recent houses, but there are
more than 50 per cent. of them let at under £5, more than a quarter let at between £5 and £10 and only one-thirteenth of the total number at more than £20. That shows what a different proposition it is in the rural areas compared with the towns. On this particular estate a fair average amongst houses under £5 to 30s. a year, and this includes gardens. On another estate the usual figures for rent of agricultural cottages is £2 10s. a year. In that rural area the usual figure is £4.

Mr. WESTWOOD: In each of these cases, would it not be the fact that they are tied houses?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Not at all; they are rented. The figures I have given are exclusive of tied houses. That brings me to another point. I do not think that all Members realise how much rural landowners have done in the way of housing the population in general.

Mr. WESTWOOD: For their own employés?

Duchess of ATHOLL: No; on the contrary, these figures apply to houses that are not provided for estate employés. These are houses rented by other people not necessarily working on the estate. I submit that this shows that owners of houses have rendered a service to the community in general in providing houses at lower rents than these could be found in the towns.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Where are these houses?

Duchess of ATHOLL: They are in the county I know best—Perthshire. I think it is quite evident to Members that rents such as these are far too low to leave any margin for the expense of reconstruction, and if we remember the difficulties of Scottish agriculture, we shall further realise that owners of land are too seldom in a position to provide money to be spent on houses improvement, and that the rents of these houses cannot furnish the money. Therefore, I cannot say with what hope and joy many owners in different parts of the country have been able to receive grants under the Rural Housing Act for the improvement of houses which otherwise they would have found it impossible to carry out. The passing of that Act gave new hope to Scottish owners who desired to bring
their houses into a satisfactory condition. The crucial point now is this: Does the Rural Housing Act still stand? I have already put that question, and have received the assurance that the powers of the local authorities still stand, that the Act does not interfere with their powers?
But a further point arises. In view of the Clause I have quoted, will the local authorities feel it worth while to exercise their powers? Will they feel inclined to give a grant to help the owner who comes forward with a scheme for improving his house under Clause 11, if they think they can oblige that owner to make all necessary improvements out of his own pocket? This raises a most important question, because it would be an unspeakable set-back to the improvement of rural housing if anything should arise to interfere with the increased use that is being made of the Rural Housing Act. I know it has been the fashion amongst some hon. Members to laugh at that Act and say it is doing nothing. I admit the delay at first. It took time to get the Regulations framed, and I know that some local authorities could not come to a decision until the Department had said exactly what the standard was to be. There is the further difficulty that if a reconstruction of houses is being undertaken, it may be that alternative accommodation has to be found while the improvements are being made. We all know that there are few spare houses in rural areas, and that in many districts whenever there is a vacant house there are always a number of applicants. Therefore, in planning a scheme for the improvement of rural houses, I know what an anxious question it is whether there are sufficient houses in which to put the people when the moment arises, and that improvement schemes may be held back for lack of alternative accommodation.
This Bill seems to be drafted in such a way that it is doubtful if local authorities will wish to proceed with grants under the Rural Housing Act. The first result of this will be that many owners will be obliged to delay, if not repairs, at any rate reconstruction and improvements as long as possible. In the second place, there will be cases in which, from fear of being obliged by the local authorities to make improvements to the
houses, the cost of which they cannot meet, as soon as the house becomes vacant, the owner will prefer to close it rather than keep it open at a low rent, and with the possibility of this liability hanging over his head.
In the third place, it seems to me that, assuming that an owner does find it possible to produce the money to make such an improvement, he will probably find himself in a position in which he will find it necessary to charge the full cost of the improvements, spread over a period of years, on the rent. That may mean a much more serious rise in rent than is possible under the Rural Housing Act, because, as the Under-Secretary of State well knows, the amount of increase of rent which an owner may make under the Rural Housing Act is limited to 3 per cent. of what he has himself spent. If he has to find the whole cost of the improvement, it may well be that he will feel that he must try to recover the whole of it gradually over a period of years, from the rent.
I will mention just two cases that I know of, showing the sort of amount that has to be spent on some of these houses. There is a scheme in progress at this moment where the reconstruction and additions to two houses will cost £370, exclusive of the architect's fee, which will probably bring the amount up to something near £400. The total rent received at present for those two houses, and for one room in one of them which is let separately, is £6 5s. Under the Rural Housing Act, the person improving those houses will not be able to add more than £6 to the rent, making a total of £12 5s. for the rent of two families. If the full cost of those improvements were to be put upon the rent, the addition would not be £6, but about £24. in the case of another scheme, the improvements to four other houses on the same estate have cost a total sum of £400. The rent of these houses before the improvements were carried out was £16, and an addition of £3 has been made to the rent of these four houses since the improvements were carried out.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is very difficult to exaggerate the set-back that may be caused to the improvement of houses in rural areas in Scotland unless this Bill can be drafted in such a way that local authorities will not feel that it is no longer worth while to operate the
Rural Housing Act. I would say, in addition, that, if the procedure possible under this Bill is followed, instead of the procedure under the Rural Housing Act, it seems to me that there will certainly be delay, and possibly friction between owners and local authorities, where, surely, we want to see co-operation. The housing problem, both in the cities and in rural areas, is so big that if needs the whole-hearted co-operation of owner, local authority and Government Department. It is a very big problem. It is a very unhappy inheritance that owners of land and housing property have on their shoulders to-day.
I cannot say to the House how I feel the responsibility that rests on owners of housing property. I want to see every opportunity given to them to do everything reasonable that is within their power to improve the many houses that I know need bringing up to modern standards. I am certain that that responsibility is being increasingly recognised, and I do not think that what has been achieved or what promises to be achieved under the Rural Housing Act is by any means sufficiently appreciated. I have been shown figures to-day to the effect that the grants approved to date under the Rural Housing Act already total over £300,000. To that we must add another £300,000 contributed from the rate, and it is, therefore, not too much to say, adding the owner's contribution to these grants—and the owner generally has the biggest third of the expense—that an expenditure of probably fully £1,000,000 has already been sanctioned and is being worked out in rural Scotland. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to give us an assurance, if he can, that he anticipates no slackening of advance under the Rural Housing Act. If it is not possible for him to give that assurance, I would ask that he and the Secretary of State give this matter their most earnest consideration, because I feel that it would be a calamity if it should go out that in Scotland it is no longer worth while to operate an Act upon which so many of us are basing very great hopes.
Then I should like to say a word about the grant system. It is, of course, pleasing to us on this side of the House to hear the praise that has been given to-day to the block grant system—a block grant which is a service grant, in that
it is dedicated to one service only; it is not a unified grant, but still it is a form of block grant. I think that one attraction which this form of grant has for us is that, being based on a sum per person displaced and rehoused, it will ensure that local authorities proceed first with displacement and rehousing in the most crowded areas. That seems to me to be a distinct advantage. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will bear in mind the fears that have been expressed from this side of the House that the proportion between rural grants and urban grants laid down by the Housing Act of 1924 has not been quite maintained. The rural areas are not coming off quite so well proportionately under this Bill as they did under the Housing Act of 1924, and that, quite legitimately, I think, gives some of us a little concern.
I wish to touch on the suggestion that has come from one or two quarters, notably from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health two days ago, that the grant might not only be assessed on families, but might be re-distributed by families on a system of allowing a rent rebate for each child. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, in the statement that she made on this subject, in which I think she indicated that a scheme of that kind was in the mind of the Ministry, though technically the local authorities were free to adopt it or not, said that this idea of rent rebates was an analogy with the Income Tax rebates which were made by the late Government. I do not think that the two are a true analogy. I do not think it can be said that to make a reduction on a tax which people have to pay, and which, however, necessary it may be for the services of the country, yet brings to the taxpayer no immediate or personal return—nothing is handed back to him, so to speak, when he pays his tax; he has to pay it to the Exchequer and trust that it is well spent, hoping for the best—I do not think it can be said that a rebate from a tax of that kind, handed to the National Exchequer and bringing no immediate return to the individual, is at all the same thing as telling an individual that so much will be allowed off his rent for every child in his family, because rent is something for which the individual gets an immediate, definite and obvious return.
I cannot help fearing that any system of that kind may tend to lessen parental responsibility, may tend in some cases to an increase in the size of families—[Interruption.] I should like to feel that there was a family in every house in the country, but is it always a great advantage that the family should be a very large one, particularly when the home is not a very big one? A house that may be big enough for a family of four or five may be a very crowded one for a family of six or eight. There is an increasing feeling among the women of the country that it is for them to say what size their family is to be, and I do not think the big majority of them would feel that it was for their welfare, or for that of their children, that any scheme should be in operation which tended to make the family larger. I cannot help feeling that any system of this kind may really tend to perpetuate the housing problem. Therefore, I earnestly hope that no utterance will go out from any Member of the Government which local authorities will take as a recommendation or suggestion to adopt a scheme of this kind. It has been advocated by one Member below the Gangway, but I observe that the Secretary of State in his allusion to it showed a truly Scottish caution. I hope very much that the Under-Secretary will equally betray the national characteristic.
Finally, I should like to say how much I welcome the proposal for hostels for old people. There is a very real need for better and more accommodation, and yet small accommodation, for old people who are not up to looking after a good sized house and yet find it difficult to get the right sort of accommodation. I think the suggestion that local authorities should be asked to consider programmes of buildings and improvement a good one, though, unless the Government can bring into effect some remedy for the present difficulties in which Scottish agriculture finds itself, the hon. Gentleman may find that a good many local authorities may he very 10th to commit themselves to schemes of rehousing some years ahead, because, if the present depression continues, who can say what will be the numbers of population in rural areas at that period? Subject to the points I have indicated, and to the necessity I have stressed for
the continued operation of the Rural Housing Act, we shall do what we can to assist the passage of the Bill, because we feel that any attempt as a solution of this great problem is one that we should do our best to assist.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sure the Government cannot in any way complain of the tone or temper of the criticism to which the Bill has been subjected, and, as I hope we shall shortly proceed to discuss the Financial Resolution, perhaps hon. Members who have been sitting here for a considerable time, will make their observations upon that Resolution.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I must enter a word of warning here. When we come to the Financial Resolution, we shall be bound by the terms of the Resolution, just as we were on the English Bill.

Major ELLIOT: I understand that there has been a discussion of an informal nature in an earlier stage, and it was ruled by Mr. Speaker that the utmost latitude should be allowed on the Financial Resolution in view of the fact that a great many Members would be shut out by their voluntary limitation on this occasion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that cannot be so. We cannot begin to make precedents of that kind.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: On a point of Order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is no point of Order arising.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is there any arrangement whereby the Debate, which is restricted now to the Bill, shall terminate at a given time?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: All I know is that when we go into Committee we must be bound by the terms of the Resolution.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I hope Scottish Members are to have an opportunity of dealing with their Housing Bill.

Mr. JOHNSTON: An hon. Member has handed me a cutting from one of yesterday's newspapers dealing with the Glasgow situation. It mentions the case of a man living with his family on the
south side of Glasgow, warding off rats night after night in order that his wife and children may secure peaceful rest. It mentions the squeaking of the rats and the noise they make running to and fro, and beetles and other vermin. Committee after committee has made inquiries into our housing conditions. The Noble Lady asked the Secretary of State and myself to make reservations, if we could, so far as family allowances were concerned. May I draw her attention to the Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences? It mentions a case of indecent assault by a father. A young daughter slept with her father, and there was a brother of 17, another family, and a lodger all in one bedroom. In another case of incest a widow lived with 11 children in a two-roomed house in a wretched locality. One of the daughters, aged 14, gave birth to a child, and two of her brothers were convicted of incest. There is page after page of horrible accounts of sexual offences against young persons. The late respected medical member of the Scottish board for a long period of time collected statistics of infant mortality. He tells us that measles, whooping cough and diphtheria show a death rate among young male children in one-apartment houses of 23 per 1,000, in two-apartment houses 18 per 1,000, in three-apartment houses 10 per 1,000, in four-apartment houses and upwards five per 1,000. In other words, the chance of death is four times greater for a baby in a single-roomed house than it is on the average in a four-apartment house in Scotland. I take the Report of the commissioners on the slum clearance schemes. There we get accounts of the conditions under which people are living to-day which one is almost afraid to read in a mixed assembly. Here is one in a Glasgow slum:
Dilapidation is rife throughout the area. Ceilings are falling down, woodwork is rotting away, there are holes in the walls of houses through which the street can be seen, and the plaster-work of the walls is loose and broken. The houses are a hunting-ground for vermin of every description. The tenants complained that they could get no peace from these pests, which drop upon their faces and crawl over their persons and beds at night, and which fall into their food during the day. The food itself will not keep in many of these tenements… owing to the damp and verminous condition of the holes in the wall in which it is kept… There are lice, rats in great number, mice. cockroaches, snails. and even toads.
I remember one case of personal experience where, with another hon. Member of this House, I sought to prevent an eviction in a Glasgow slum, and there we had it certified to us by the doctor in attendance that a baby lying in a box on the floor had been bitten on the cheek by a huge rat. Take the city of Edinburgh and the extraordinary figures given by the burgh engineer at the inquiry on 10th February this year concerning the Saint Leonards ward. The figures are almost incredible. The average number of houses per acre in that ward is 166. The average number of persons per acre is 576. The Wheatley Act allows 12 houses to the acre; here there are 166. In the worst part of that area there is a density of 470 houses per acre, and there are 1,393 persons per acre. If I wanted further evidence as to the necessity for this Bill, I should take the comparative mortality statistics for the four great cities. I take Glasgow. In the Calton ward, in 1928, 161 babies died out of every 1,000 born. In the Cathcart ward only 37 died. In Edinburgh, in Saint Giles's ward, a working class ward, out of every 1,000 babies born, 111 died before they reached the age of 12 months, but in the Colinton ward only 12 died. In Dundee the figures ranged between 65 in Broughty Ferry ward, and 127 in Hawk-hill and Blackness ward. In Aberdeen, the same proportions obtained—63 in Rosemount ward and 134 in Saint Andrew's ward. With these figures before us, is there any hon. Member in any part of the House who dare say that there is not an urgent necessity for some such Bill as the Government have introduced this afternoon?
There have been criticisms brought forward. Some of them were more suitable for the Committee stage, and will require to be dealt with in Committee upstairs. But there were two points which emerged from the discussion in general upon which I should like to offer a few observations. One point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), by the hon. Lady who represents North Lanark (Miss Lee) and, indeed, by other hon. Members. It is the question of poverty. Are these people able to pay the rent which will be charged, and which they are being charged in the present day slum clearance schemes? What is to be done with
the people who are so poor that they cannot afford to buy furniture? That was the chief point which was made by the hon. Member for Gorbals. These people at present are paying 5s. a week in a city slum. What is to be done with them when they are assisted to a slum clearance house? The answer is that there is already power in the hands of the local authorities, under the Act of 1925, Section 43 (2), to furnish and supply any such house with all the requisite furniture, fittings and conveniences. The power is in the hands of the local authorities now.
While it is undeniably true that the whole question of housing is very largely, at the present time, a question of poverty, the power is in the hands of the public assistance committees and the local authorities to make contributions, if necessary, and there need be no reason, when this Bill has been passed, for any human being being compelled to live under the horrible housing conditions which I have just described. If it is a question of poverty, the local authorities have power to deal with the matter. They can subsidise. They can reduce the rents. They can average the assistance which the State gives them in such a way that the backs best able to bear the burden bear it, and those who, because of poverty, are unable to pay a decent rent, will get, at any rate, a decent house. It is the opinion of the Government that every human being in the land is as much entitled to healthy shelter, fresh air and decent living conditions as to a decent supply of water, and it is the purpose of the Government, in the midst of many and manifold difficulties, through this Measure to assist local authorities as far as possible in our day and generation to wipe out the slum conditions, and to ensure that every family has a decent minimum standard of physical existence.
Another question was raised as to the operations of the Rural Workers' Act, how far it is operating now, and how far it can be speeded up. The Noble Lady expressed some fear as to whether as an indirect result of this Bill the operations of that Act might not be slowed down. The facts are that, while the Act was slow in beginning operations, it is now operating. There have been approved for alteration 3,518 dwellings and
work has been finished on 1,981 dwellings. The Secretary of State for Scotland is doing his utmost to induce local authorities who have not so far operated the Act to put it into operation. There are parts of the country where, I am sorry to say, not a single house has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act.
The hon. Member who initiated the discussion, and other hon. Members, expressed a fear as to whether or not the subsidy was adequate for dealing with rural housing conditions. Is is always better in these matters to reason from the individual specific case where all the facts are known. We have had the figures extracted, and here is what they amount to: In a rural area, with a grant of £2 15s., if a rent of £14 per annum were charged, the local authority paying £4 1s. 7d. on an average, over a period of 60 years—the equivalent of £4 10s. for 40 years—there would actually be a profit to the local authority of 19s. 8d. per annum on that house. Under the provisions of the Act, however, the local authority is not permitted to make a profit, so that in such a case the rent would require to be reduced to about £13 per annum. If a rent of £13 per annum only were charged, there would be no loss to the local authority, above the £4 1s. 7d. per annum to which I have referred.
In rural areas it is the case that the bigger the house the bigger the subsidy, but in any scheme taken over 60 years, not 40 years, with 75 per cent. of three-roomed houses, the net State subvention would amount to 66⅔ per cent., as against the present 50 per cent. of the net average loss. I hope that these figures will reassure my hon. Friends below the Gangway opposite, that so far as rural areas are concerned they are better off to some extent than they are under existing conditions. The fact remains that only five counties in Scotland have operated the Slum Clearance Act, but if an average scheme is taker and if the local authorities will ensure that at least 75 per cent. of the houses will be houses of three rooms and over, then the average subvention given to the local authorities in aid of that scheme will amount to 60⅔ per cent.
There is one further point to remember. Under the Act of last year the agricul-
tural relief from de-rating in Scotland amounted to £950,000 this year, of which it is estimated that £396,000 is to be handed back by the owners to the occupiers, leaving a balance of £554,000 in the hands of the proprietors in Scotland in the rural areas. Surely, it is not asking too much to say that, at least, part of that sum will be used to improve the property and to provide healthier conditions for the people who are living on their estates. I do not want to detain the House with points which must be discussed in Committee upstairs. It is inevitable that when we come to the Committee stage many points will be raised by hon. Members, and they must be thoroughly and adequately discussed.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Before the hon. Member finishes, can he give us any information in regard to the points raised as to the small burghs in Scotland?

Mr. JOHNSTON: That point was, I understand, raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train). He complained, I believe, that I have agreed in some cases to permit the building of 40 per cent. of two-room houses in housing schemes. Much against my wishes I was driven to do it. I have endeavoured to limit the proportion of those houses to 25 per cent. of the total. We are seeking to raise the standard of houses in Scotland and to limit the proportion of two-roomed houses, but there have been instances where the local authorities have shown that they have already three-roomed houses under the last housing scheme, unlet, and there have been local authorities who have shown us that their previous housing schemes had no proportion of two-roomed houses. Therefore, under pressure, we yielded and permitted a larger proportion of two-roomed houses, but in no case have we gone above 40 per cent., and in other cases I think we have reduced the proportion which the local authority desired.
The hon. Member also raised a point about houses in small burghs where a penny rate raises a very small sum. There are places where a penny rate raises only about £55, and where the local authorities have done nothing at all, even where they could have done something, and where it will be our duty to
bring pressure upon them. There are local authorities at this moment with regard to whom the Secretary of State and myself are considering setting up a form of local inquiry under the Act as a preliminary to our taking still more drastic steps, if necessary. The question of houses in small burghs where a penny rate produces a very small sum of money is a problem which has many repercussions, and I trust that my hon. Friend will not push me too far, lest he pushes these houses out of the control of the local authority altogether and into the hands of the counties. Even in those burghs which have a very small return for a penny rate, under the provisions of this Bill, except for two-apartment houses, it will be possible to proceed with slum clearance schemes and to let those houses at rents which are substantially the same as the rents the people are paying now. There are probably no two burghs where the conditions are alike, and it is very difficult to set up regulations which will apply to every burgh, but as far as our advisers can tell us there is no burgh in Scotland whose financial circumstances will not benefit materially by putting into operation the provisions of this slum clearance Bill, to which I trust the House will now give a Second Reading.

Major ELLIOT: The Under-Secretary has not referred to the question of finance as it affects rural areas.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I thought the hon. and gallant Member would have permitted us to do that on the Financial Resolution, in view of the important statement which I understand is to be communicated to the House.

Major DUDGEON: I do not desire to prevent the House discussing other important matters, but I feel there is a point of view with regard to certain areas in Scotland which should be put before the House. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made an interesting contribution to this Debate. He stressed the question of poverty in regard to housing, and that is a point of view which requires most careful examination. A large number of people would like to avail themselves of housing accommodation, but are unable to do so because they are unable to pay even the reduced rents which are now being charged by
local authorities; they are unable even to provide furniture which would make these homes reasonably comfortable. The hon. Member for Gorbals stated that the rent of 5s. per week which was paid in certain slum areas in Scotland would probably amount to 8s. 6d. in the case of these new houses to be provided for them. That is an additional rent charge on the people who are to be transferred from these slums from the money which they ordinarily expend on food.
I would suggest that the Bill, although a distinct step forward, should have even wider ramifications. A great reduction could be made in the cost to individual holders if a system of what is termed service flats was available. These poor people can only buy in small quantities, and they have, therefore, to pay top prices for both coal and food. An extension of the system of service flats to the poorest people in this country would enable them to have a cheap means of warming their houses, and, by a sytem of central feeding in these flats, they would be able to obtain their food at a most reasonable rate. Then there is the question of the small burghs. Some of them have been trying to deal with the question of the clearance of slums. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) referred to the town of Dumfries, a part of which I represent. Dumfries has a progressive town council, and during the last 10 years has really grappled with the slum problem. They are some of the worst slums in Scotland. A great part of the credit of the action taken by the town of Dumfries is due to 9.0 p.m. the initiative of the medical officer of the burgh, who is now the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Dr. Hunter). The question of site is very important. It is often extremely difficult for small burghs to get a proper site in their own area for new houses in connection with slum clearance schemes, and I would suggest that some machinery should be set up whereby small burghs could be brought into contact with the county authority in order to get the really best site within a reasonable distance for these new housing schemes.
The last point I wish to mention is the individual slum in the rural areas. Some hon. Members consider that a tied house is undesirable and others that it is de-
sirable; but the point I wish to stress is that at the moment we have to put up with these tied houses because in some cases they are really part of the equipment of the farm. I deplore the fact that in every Housing Bill since the War this question of the tied house has been baulked. I agree that it is a difficult matter, but it can be dealt with by the co-operation of the landowner, the occupying farmer, and the local authority, and if we are to get rid of some of the worst slums in the whole of Scotland, we shall have to get rid of some of these tied houses on farms. In some of them overcrowding is extreme, water has to be brought two hundred and three hundred yards by women, several times a day, and they are absolutely deficient of all sanitary conveniences. A much more serious effort should be made to bring these houses into a reasonable state to meet modern requirements. We are losing the best of our populatiion from the countryside in Scotland, and they are going not only overseas but into the towns where, if they find employment, they very often displace a town dweller. If we are to maintain our people on the land we must go in for a policy which will give them the same housing facilities as are enjoyed by people in the large towns. I would stress the point that the financial provisions of this Bill should be extended in order to give the countryside in Scotland greater opportunities to get up to date and to provide a proper system of housing in our rural areas.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Do I understand that at the conclusion of the statement which is about to be made upon another matter, there will be a proper opportunity of renewing the discussion on the Scottish Housing Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member put that question to me as a point of Order?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In whatever way you term it, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: As soon as this Bill has been read a Second time the House will go into Committee to consider the Money Resolution in connection with the Bill.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will it then be in order to have a general discussion on the Financial measures pertaining to the Bill?

Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. I think it was generally understood among Scottish Members that a general discussion would be allowed on the Money Resolution, if the statement mentioned by the hon. Member was allowed to be made just now after the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the Money Resolution will be discussed in Committee and that the Chairman of Committees will be responsible for the conduct of the Debate on that occasion. It is not for me to interfere with the discretion of the Chairman of Committees, as to the length to which that discussion may go.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: As the Chairman of Committees has ruled that we would not, on such an occasion, have the opportunity of a general discussion I should like to make my remarks now.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: On a point of Order. Is it not possible to have an interruption of the business now and to resume the Debate on the Second Reading after the statement has been made?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that can be done. If a Motion were made "That the Debate be now adjourned," the discussion would have to be confined to reasons for adjourning the Debate. We must abide by the Rules of the House, whatever happens.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In Scottish interests, I must take this opportunity of exercising my right as a Scottish Member to speak on this Bill before it receives a Second Reading. Some of us have been waiting here during the whole of this afternoon for an opportunity of dealing with the Bill, and while I know that a large number of Members, like myself, wish to hear the important statement which we understand is about to be made, yet I do not agree that Scottish affairs should be relegated to one side in the manner suggested, or that it should simply be a matter of the Government calling upon the House to set aside Scottish business in order to take up other matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I propose to get on with it, but the hon. Members who interject these remarks have not been here all afternoon; indeed I do not think there have been more than a dozen people in the
Chamber during most of the discussion although this question of housing is a most important one for Scotland. A point which has been urged in connection with this Bill and which I would like to hear emphasised from the Labour benches is that we are not here dealing with a root question—which is unfortunately the impression left by previous discussions on this issue—but that we are only dealing with a branch question. All through the speeches from both sides of the House to-day, there has been a growing acknowledgment of the fact that, whatever Bill may be produced, dealing only with housing, there is still the poverty issue, and all that it involves, to be faced.
We have to face the fact that this Bill is endeavouring to confer, only on the occupants of what are known as slum houses, the advantage of a certain differentiation in payments. I urge upon the Government that there are other people in Scotland, in very poor circumstances, who do not, fortunately for themselves, occupy what are known as slum areas or slum tenements, and those people are also in grave difficulties. Perhaps I may refer to the case of the City of Dundee. There are many people in that city, with families, occupying dwellings of one room or two rooms, because of the exigencies of the circumstances pertaining to their livelihood, and while the city has done well in the matter of housing we have reached a point at which there is a concentration on providing for the occupants of what are known as slum houses, while other people, who are also in difficulties, are debarred from getting an advantage which is very necessary to them as well. In proposing to make a differentiation in favour of the people in slum areas, I suggest that the Government will put a disadvantage on others who are not in occupation of tenancies which come within the description of slums. To-day, as we know, local authorities are enabled to exercise the right of relieving people, such as those of whom I am speaking, of their rates apart, from the particular class of houses which they may occupy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] If hon. Members think that the way of dealing with the housing question is by interruptions of that kind—[Interruption.] I am sorry to hear anything of the kind coming from the Labour benches, but I assure the hon. Members
who interrupt me, that I do not work on the automatic system. I come here voluntarily to stand up for what I believe to be right and necessary.
In Dundee we have already done a substantial amount in clearances. The Leader of the Conservative Opposition, a few years ago, visited one of our slum areas and described the situation there as appalling. The whole of that area has been cleared and through the generosity of a citizen, who passed away some little time ago, a sum of £100,000 has been made available for the provision of playgrounds and open spaces—that being, of course, apart from the question of providing houses. It is necessary to emphasise, however, that the Bill does not insist on the necessity of the actual building of the houses—the production of the houses—to accommodate the people who are displaced. The authorities are left to pursue whatever course they think fit. The demand is that a scheme should be submitted, for a clearance area or an improvement area, but nothing is definitely laid down concerning the building of the houses. There is a definite undertaking that before a scheme can be approved, accommodation must be available, but there is no definite direction as to the building of the houses.
With the situation as it is to-day in the depressed industrial condition of the country, our city itself is beginning to feel the tightening of the grip, and the situation has become desperate. There are people in very grave and serious circumstances, and whatever may be the result of the Naval Conference, there is no actual home defence. That is the problem we should be discussing now. It is most appropriate that you should have in view the defencelessness of the home circle, the appalling conditions of people unable to find a livelihood. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, it is not the housing issue, but where are we going to get our living, where are we going to get a chance of providing the necessities for the cupboard and facilities to feed the children?
These are the issues. There is no doubt at all about it. You can get an agreement. It is years since there was such absolute unanimity about the housing question. It is a popular question. It has been exploited largely politically, as if you were doing something substantial
in regard to the eradication of these root causes, but they are not being touched. You are deliberately evading them, and you know you are not touching them. The Labour Government themselves are not facing the problem. This bill is good, so far as it goes. Undoubtedly the situation is astounding, but it is not the finding of the bricks and mortar and the stone or the creation of the houses; it is the human element, to which we were directed in the English discussion by the former Minister of Health, that is the real, the pronounced issue that we have to face, and that human element is being allowed to be submerged. You can find houses, but you are not producing the manhood, you are not safeguarding the womanhood, you are not protecting the childhood of the nation. It has been well said that the glory of the Empire is settled in the hearts and homes of the people. Well, the hearts of the people are broken, the hearts of the people are sorrow-stricken. We are concerned about the question not only of houses, but of the withholding too often of the necessities of life.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going far beyond the question before the House.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: With all due deference, if that be so, I guarantee that there are some who have gone a long way beyond that in this discussion this same day, but I do not proceed any further, because I have endeavoured to urge the strong feeling that is at my heart, and I would not be in this House for five minutes if I did not discharge, when I have the opportunity, the duty which I feel called upon to discharge.

Orders of the Day — LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): With the indulgence of the House, I should like to mike a very brief statement—it must be brief under the circumstances—as to what has happened at the Naval Conference to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman please move the Adjournment of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the House do now adjourn."
I was going to do so, to enable me to make that statement. I am happy to say that this forenoon an agreement was finally reached between the United States, Japan and Great Britain on a naval programme including all categories of ships. The terms of the agreement are now being drafted, but they follow very closely on the figures announced last September and October during the negotiations with the United States, and show substantial reductions. A White Paper will be prepared. From time to time since the opening of the Conference, various points of disagreement which have held up progress towards disarmament have been settled, and these, it is hoped, brought together in one instrument, will be signed by the five Powers.
The differences in the naval requirements of France, and Italy have proved to be intricate, and have not so far been resolved. At a meeting early this evening between the French, the Italian, and the United Kingdom delegations, it was decided that, as such substantial agreement had been come to, it was thought unnecessary and undesirable to keep the full body of delegates sitting in London pending a settlement of difficulties which primarily concern these three delegations only; and so we shall propose, at a plenary session to be held early next week, that the agreements now come to shall be signed, and the Conference adjourned, on the understanding that France, Italy, and ourselves shall continue efforts to come to an agreement in unison with that which has been reached between the United States, Japan, and ourselves.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: It is perfectly obvious that it would be impossible this evening either to criticise or to debate this matter. We are obliged to the Prime Minister for the statement which he has made. He has told us that a White Paper will be issued. I hope that White Paper will give very complete information and will be laid at the earliest possible moment, and I have no doubt that an opportunity will arise, when we have had time to consider it, for a discussion of the matter. The only other point on which I would like information this evening is that with regard to a
three-Power agreement, pact, or treaty, or whatever name you like to give to it. I should like to know when such an agreement would become effective whether he would say, so far as he is concerned—I think I am familiar with it, if the whole House is not—what the procedure would be in Japan and America, so that we may know how long a time might have to elapse before this instrument was put into force and ratified by whatever process of ratification might be necessary. There is no further observation that I wish to make.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: In the absence from London of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who was not aware that this statement would be made this evening, I should like to add one or two sentences on behalf of those who sit on these benches. All of us, in all parts of the House, have been most keenly desirous for the success of this Conference, and we congratulate the Prime Minister on the measure of success that he has attained, though I cannot refrain from expressing our regret that circumstances have not made it possible to render that success more complete. We must reserve for later, when the full facts are before Parliament, the opportunity of commenting upon the agreement which has been reached, but I am sure that to-night the whole House would wish to express their thanks to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues for the strenuous efforts that they have made on behalf of this country at the Conference.

The PRIME MINISTER: May I ask the indulgence of the House? May I say, regarding the method of putting the agreement in force, that I am not familiar with the machinery provided by the Japanese Constitution, but it would have to go before the Senate of the United States, which I suppose would be done as speedily as possible, and, so far as we are concerned, if it should emerge in the form of a treaty, it would just be ratified in the usual way—not by Resolution of this House. It would be signed by us, but the signature would not have effect without ratification later on. In the interval between the signing and the ratification, I am perfectly certain that this House will have an opportunity of expressing its views on the contents of
the document whatever form it may take. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision with respect to the clearance or improvement of unhealthy areas, the repair, demolition, or closing of insanitary houses, and the housing of persons of the working classes in Scotland, to amend the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and other enactments relating to housing subsidies and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
(1) of annual contributions towards any expenses incurred by local authorities in connection with any action taken by them under the said Act for dealing with clearance or improvement areas or for the demolition or closing of insanitary houses, and in connection with the provision and maintenance of the housing accommodation rendered necessary by any action so taken or action taken under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section forty-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, so, however, that such a contribution shall be payable during a period of forty years only and shall not exceed—
(a) so far as regards persons displaced from houses in a rural area, the sum of two pounds fifteen shillings, and so far as regards persons displaced from houses in other areas the sum of two pounds ten shillings, multiplied in either case by the number of persons of the working classes (being persons whose displacement is shown to the satisfaction of the Department of Health for Scotland to have been rendered necessary by such action as aforesaid), for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Department, been rendered available in new houses; and
(b) in any case where the local authority purchase under the said Act or pay compensation under the said Act in respect of dwelling houses or other premises which are neither unfit for human habitation nor injurious or dangerous to health, and which are included in a clearance Order or compul-
2476
sory purchase Order by reason only of forming part of the same buildings as dwelling houses which are unfit for human habitation or injurious or dangerous to health, an additional sum of fifteen shillings, multiplied by the number of persons displaced front the clearance or improvement area, but such additional sum shall not exceed the annual sum required over a period of forty years to meet one-half of the total sum representing—

(i) the compensation paid in respect of the demolition of such, if any, of the said dwelling house or other premises as were included in the clearance Order; and
(ii) the purchase price or compensation paid in respect of the acquisition of the remainder of the said dwelling houses or other premises under deduction of the sum which, in the opinion of the Department, would have been payable by the authority as compensation in respect of the said dwelling houses or other premises had the said dwelling houses and premises been specified in the compulsory purchase Order as injurious or dangerous to health;

(2) of annual contributions towards the provision of hostels to meet the needs of single persons, so, however, that such a contribution shall not exceed the sum per person ascertained in accordance with paragraph (1) hereof, multiplied by a number determined by the Department of Health for Scotland as being the number of persons for whom the hostel provides housing accommodation;
(3) of any additional sums which may become payable under previous enactments relating to housing subsidies by reason of any provision of the said Act which—

(a) amends the definition of rural area in the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924; or
(b) provides that, as from the sixteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty, the amount of an annual payment to be made to local authority under Section five of the Housing. Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, or Sub-section (3) of Section one, Section six, or Section twenty-three of the Housing, etc., Act, 1923, may, instead of being determined on the basis of the estimated annual loss or estimated average annual loss resulting from the carrying out of the scheme in respect of which the payment is to be made, be determined either on the basis of the actual loss so resulting, or on the basis of the estimated annual loss or estimated average annual loss so resulting, or on the basis of actual income expenditure as respects some items required to be brought into account, and on the basis of estimated income or expenditure as respects other such items;

(4) of any expenses incurred by the Department of Health for Scotland under
2477
the said Act in exercising any powers of a local authority, subject, however, to the recovery of those expenses from the local authority in the manner provided by the said Act."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Mr. W. ADAMSON: As has been recognised during the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, the most important change from the point of view of the local authority is that dealing with the finance of rehousing schemes. The Government propose, if a case is put forward by a local authority, a greater measure of financial assistance towards slum clearance schemes, but in a form different from that which has hitherto prevailed. The present percentage system is to be departed from. This form of grant necessitated departmental control of all expenses of local authorities, and it is felt that the grant should be fixed to allow local authorities a freer hand in the framing and development of their housing schemes. As already explained, the new grant will be on a unit basis. The grant for every person displaced and for whom accommodation has to be made available under the Bill, will normally be £2 10s., which is 5s. higher than the corresponding grant under the English Bill. In rural areas, the grant will be £2 15s. per person. An addition to the grant is to be given to meet the conditions arising out of the tenement system so generally prevalent in Scotland.
Under the Bill a local authority may require the demolition by the owner of a tenement which contains both sanitary and insanitary premises, such as a good house or a shop in an otherwise bad tenement. They may also have to purchase such a tenement with a view to its demolition. In the former case, the compensation payable is the market value of the good premises less, of course, the site value, as the owner retains the site. In the latter case, the compensation is the market value, the site in this case becoming the property of the local authority. To meet this expenditure, the Bill proposes to allow an additional unit grant not exceeding 15s., fixed on the basis of the annual sum required over 40 years to meet 50 per cent. of the market value less the site value of the good premises.
The Bill provides that the number of persons to be taken into account in cal-
culating the amount of the State grant must not exceed the number for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Department of Health of Scotland, been rendered available in the new houses. The object of acquiring the approval of the Department is that the grant may be used as a means of securing the provision of houses of a size suitable for the families to be accommodated therein. The grant is an encouragement to the provisions of larger houses. There has been a persistent demand on the part of local authorities in Scotland to be allowed to build houses of only two apartments, chiefly on the ground that people cannot afford the rent usually charged for the larger type of houses. The new grant, distributed on the basis proposed, will not only enable the local authorities to provide the large house—which is necessary if decent conditions of living are to be observed—at a rent which people can pay, but it will operate in such a way that the net charge falling on the rates will diminish with the size of the house.
Our calculations so far as rent is concerned have been based on the assumption that the rent to be charged for a two-roomed house will approximate to £12 per annum; for a three-roomed house to £14 per annum; and for a four-roomed house to £16 per annum. In each case occupiers' rates will, of course, be payable in addition. On the present cost of house building, it is estimated that if under the Bill a local authority submits a scheme which provides for 25 per cent. of two-roomed houses, and 75 per cent. of three-roomed houses, they will receive grants roughly equivalent on a percentage basis to nearly 66⅓ of the annual cost of the houses beyond what is not recoverable by way of rent. The Bill provides that the local authority are to make a contribution from the local rates towards the annual loss on re-housing of not less than £4 10s.

Mr. SKELTON: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given mean that the grant will be higher in proportion to the number of small-roomed houses?

Mr. ADAMSON: It is the reverse of that. The bigger the proportion of three and four-roomed houses, the better it will be for the local authority. During the last four years the number of houses
completed in slum clearance schemes in Scotland has been 2,500 per annum. The Exchequer subsidy on that number of houses is estimated at about £21,000 per annum. If, as is hoped, in consequence of the provisions of the Bill, this number should increase in the first year to 5,000, and if an average of four persons per house be assumed, the grant under the new arrangement, including the special grant in respect of compensation, would amount to £55,000 per annum. The increase to the Exchequer would thus be about £34,000. If, however, the number of houses provided be greater than 5,000, the amount of the grant would be correspondingly greater. I have, in the short time that I have occupied the Floor, tried to give as clear an explanation of the Financial Resolution as it is possible for me to give, and I hope that the Committee will give us the Motion in a short period of time.

Major ELLIOT: We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. He has dealt shortly with the main points under discussion—rather more shortly, I think, than is desirable, in view of the fact that this is really the gist of the whole Bill. This is the steam for the Bill, and whatever engine the right hon. Gentleman builds, unless he gets the steam in the boiler, nothing will happen. I call the attention of my hon. Friends below the Gangway to this point, because, as they know, while a Financial Resolution is all important, it is impossible for the Opposition to increase it, or to alter it in any way in which they would like to alter it. Sometimes, however, pressure from various sides will induce the Government to alter it. The Government only have power to signalise the King's Recommendation which will enable an increased charge to be laid on his subjects. After the Committee stage has been taken, there will be the Report stage, and then, for all practical purposes, the matter is decided, and whatever is done in this Motion governs what we are able to do upstairs in Committee. In the first place, this grant is to be calculated on a formula—

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is not a formula.

Major ELLIOT: It is a formula, and a formula which will stand a little more
definition. The formula says that the sum to be paid to the local authority is £2 10s. multiplied by
the number of persons of the working classes (being persons whose displacement is shown to the satisfaction of the Department of Health to have been rendered necessary by such action as aforesaid) for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Department, been rendered available in new houses.
I handed in a manuscript Amendment designed to leave out the words "of the working classes," making it simply "persons" displaced, because I had a certain apprehension of what the Courts might do. I know what we in this Committee think—we are all right—but what the Courts may rule when confronted with a formula which says that a certain sum is to be multiplied by the number of "persons of the working classes" I do not know. There may be certain other people included in a household. At any rate, I cannot see that it would do any harm to omit the words "of the working classes," and I handed in an Amendment to that effect, but I was informed at the Table that that might mean a charge on the subject, and therefore would be out of order. I cannot move it, but I earnestly beg the Under-Secretary to consider the point, and see whether it would not be possible to recommit the Bill on the Report stage, and to leave out these words.

The CHAIRMAN: It may save time if I tell the hon. and gallant Member that it cannot be done on the Report stage any more than it could be done now.

Major ELLIOT: This is a point of great interest. Do I understand you to say, Sir, that it is impossible for the Government themselves to alter the Resolution?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it would be necessary for them to Withdraw this Resolution and to bring in another one. I intervene to say that because I want to save any argument about it.

Major ELLIOT: It is quit clear—

Mr. MACPHERSON: Why discuss it?

Major ELLIOT: I am not going to discuss it, but I do ask the Committee to realise how very much we are tied by the terms of the Finacial Resolution.

Mr. MACPHERSON: That was my point.

Major ELLIOT: I understood it. I say that it may be necessary to withdraw this Resolution and bring in another one. I have known cases where a Financial Resolution has been withdrawn and a new one presented and I am sure that if the Government, in the interests of making better provision for slum clearance and settling a point which may well give trouble in the Courts in later years, were to withdraw this Resolution and submit a new one, there need be no delay so far as we are concerned. No time would be lost. It might save a judgment such as the Derby judgment, which has held up slum clearance in England for a matter of two years, and has led to a great deal of hardship. I beg the Government to consider the withdrawal of this Resolution and the substitution of a new one leaving out the words "of the working classes." The words "the working classes" are not defined in any Scottish Act. The Schedule 5 of the 1925 Housing Act does, I admit, bring in a certain definition of the working classes, but it is only applicable to that schedule, and gentlemen learned in the law, looking through the Acts for guidance as to a term completely undefined, might well come down upon that Schedule and give a definition which might hold up the progress we desire to make. However, I will pass from that point. I have done all I can under the rules of order to bring it to the notice of the Government.
The major proposition laid before us is this. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman says that the grant, which is at present on a 50–50 basis, is likely to work out at 66⅔ per cent. If that is so, does it really justify the encomiums which have been heaped upon this Measure? We are told that for 5,000 houses a grant of £55,000 per annum will he provided—did I take those figures down correctly?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The amount of the grant would obviously depend upon two factors, upon the numbers dispossessed, and the size of the houses in which these people are placed, so that the hon. and gallant Member cannot get an answer to the question in the form in which he puts it.

Major ELLIOT: I was asking whether I had correctly taken down the figures given by the Secretary of State. I did not give what he said at length, but I understood him to say that 5,000 houses at four persons per house would give £55,000.

Mr. ADAMSON: At an average of four persons per house.

Major ELLIOT: That would be something in the neighbourhood of £11 per house, and I submit that that figure does not accord with the claim that we are launching a great and far-reaching campaign against the slums. Taking it at its best, the Government are giving 66⅓ per cent. against the old figure of 50 per cent., and for 5,000 houses the grant would be £55,000 per annum, an average of something like £11 a house. That is a Government subsidy of £11, and it is for a 40-year period. The previous subsidy was £8 10s. per house for a 60-year period.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is weighted on a 60-year basis.

Major ELLIOT: Let that be so. The grant of £11 is in contrast with the former grant of £8 10s., giving an extra 50s. I suggest that the extra grant will not admit of the far-reaching social changes which have been adumbrated. The lump sum subsidy under the Chamberlain Act—where there is a grant of £8 10s. weighted for 60 yeare—was £162, or thereabouts. What one may call the Adamson subsidy is £2 10s. for 40 years. That is for four persons to a house; and the calculations given in the various slum clearance proposals which have been brought forward, notably the Calton Hill site clearance scheme, indicate something like four persons to a house. The lump sum subsidy in this case, therefore, is something like £170 or £172. The difference between £160, the present subsidy, and £170, the new subsidy, is, again, not anything—

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. and gallant Member permit me? He is in very serious error here. The present subsidy is £8 10s. In that is included compensation costs. In his £2 10s. figure, on which he is calculating now, he has omitted to include the compensation costs, which may go up to 15s. per head. and add something in the neighbourhood of another £20.

Major ELLIOT: I was coming to that point. The Under-Secretary says that, in addition, there is a sum which may be granted for compensation. I would call attention to the fact that that compensation can only be obtained if it attracts an equivalent amount from the local authorities. In the case of the Calton site the only contribution by the Government under the present conditions would be £11,160 for a 60-year period and £13,240 for a 40-year period. The grant by the Government under the new scheme, instead of being £13,200, would be £12,800. That sum is less the compensation which is only on behalf of 153 people who have been displaced from properties and uninhabited houses, and 434 persons who have been displaced in other ways. I do not think that will come to very much. In any case, the figure of £11,160 from the Government on a fifty-fifty basis would require £11,160 from the rates. Under the new proposals a very substantial sum will have to be found from the rates. I do not believe that the figures for compensation average a very high rate for Scotland. While on property in Edinburgh of archaeological value the figure might be high, there are great areas of squalid featureless slum property in which there will be no big figure for compensation, and the figures will work out almost identical with the fifty-fifty basis. We shall investigate these matters further, but even at the best I do not think they will be seriously greater than the figures which the local committee get at the present time.
The difference between the present scheme of administration has been brought forward to-night, but I suggest that the amount paid for compensation is likely to vary, and in the very schemes where we are anxious to obtain the most favourable results the compensation figure may not give a very good result. In view of this so-called differential rents which are to be paid, where does the money come from for that purpose? Again, the money is paid in the aggregate by the new scheme. The grant is to be calculated on the number of persons who have been rehoused, and any differentiation in the rents comes out of the pockets of the people who are living under that scheme. Once a scheme has been formed any differentiation in the rents can only be made by charging more to one tenant and
less to another tenant in the same scheme.

Mr. JOHNSTON: There is nothing in the world to prevent the public assistance committee or the corporation of Glasgow making a grant to the housing committee to enable one hundred or even a thousand people to pay those rents.

Mr. SKELTON: That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Major ELLIOT: We are now discussing how Scotland is going to be affected by these schemes, and the fact that the corporation may make a grant 10.0 p.m. to help poor persons does not alter the effect of the scheme. There are one or two points of draftsmanship which I should like to see cleared up in this Financial Resolution. I do not believe that the local authorities will get as much as they have asked, or as much as they were expecting. I repeat that the social reforms which have been held out in regard to the differentiation of rents within the scheme can only be brought about if it is understand that A, who is getting a lower rent, can only get it because a higher rent is charged to B, and the only way in which that can be avoided is by a grant from the public assistance committee out of the rates.
The Government ought to give this matter more careful consideration before the Committee stage. They are taking upon themselves a great responsibility. They are getting these Measures through without a Division, and it is always a very serious thing to get anything passed unanimously in this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a compliment.") It is not only a great compliment, but it is an awful pitfall. We shall allow this Financial Resolution to go through without a Division. At this stage, we do not desire to divide against the Bill, but we may divide against it on the Report stage if our points are not met. At this stage, we offer the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Resolution. The money box is open, the House of Commons is waiting for him, the Mace is below the Table, and any recommendation from the King that the right hon. Gentleman may require he can obtain if he puts it in his own singularly tactful manner. Here is our chance. Let us take it, but let us remember that, as I have said, the testing time of this Bill is not now. The Division will come a year hence, when
the Bill for the year, and the housing construction programme for the year, are explained to the House. Then it will be for us to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, he has lived up to our expectations or not.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I support the Money Resolution. I had some doubts about the inducements offered, particularly to rural local authorities, but I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has satisfied me that they will be in no worse position than under the 1924 Act. Statistics given under a Bill of this kind must necessarily be of a hypothetical nature. It is clear that neither the Secretary of State nor the Under-Secretary could give us definite figures at the present time, because the whole amount allotted to this scheme must depend upon one or two things in the future. It must depend on whether this scheme is going to be a success or not; whether there is to be a great demand for demolition of slums in certain localities, and whether new houses are to be built, and how many of the occupants to be put into these new houses are displaced people. Until you know these facts, you do not know how much money will be expended by the Government. I am glad to hear that the Treasury feel that as much money as possible should be spent in that direction. I am sure that Members in all parts of the Committee will welcome a better home life for the people. One point which worried me a great deal was this: I understand from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it will be the county alone which will provide the £4 10s. rate.

Mr. JOHNSTON: £4 1s. 7d. for 60 years.

Mr. MACPHERSON: That will be the general rate after 15th May of this year. There is a second point which, I think, will affect the finance, and will also affect the passing of this Resolution. Can he say whether he proposes to make the grant retrospective from the introduction of this Bill? I hope so. It will make the greatest difference to the success of the scheme as a whole.

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) tried to deal in his remarks with what he called a formula. His difficulty was that in previous Acts we had an unknown quantity,
but in this Financial Resolution the quantities are known, although they vary. When he got to the question of trying to change the words class of workers to meet his own argument, he might have quoted these words: "All persons displaced by provisions of this Act." But that does not alter the fact that the Bill deals only with persons of a certain class. With regard to the finances of the Resolution, it is true that everything is based on the financial working of the Act, but it is well known that the financial business in relation to housing has always been a complicated affair. The effort is made by a great many people to give their family a better chance by getting them into a bigger house, but it is not so much a question of rent as the fact that when they have moved they are faced with increased rates. The financial provisions of this Measure are such that a big effort will be made towards giving financial relief in this direction.
In Clause 34, dealing with valuation and rating, there is a serious thing, which has been associated with all housing schemes. If you take a certain housing scheme mentioned to-day, in the lower part of Lanarkshire, where you have two-roomed dwellings and a rent of £18, what is known in Scotland as the owner's burden of rate is added to the rent. That is to say, the occupier pays the owner's rate. This is the case: The occupier pays owner's rates amounting to £3 12s. The owner pays 4s. rate on rent of £18 amounting to £3 12s. The occupier pays 6s. rate on his £18 rent amounting to £5 8s., a total of £12 12s. Both the owners and the occupiers pay rates on rates. That is to say, £3 12s. is put on as part of the rent which has to be paid, and the occupier pays his rates on that, which becomes £1 13s. 7d. He is thus paying on a sum of money that has nothing to do with the erection of the house. Rates are a difficulty which will go on accumulating unless something is done, and I hope that before this Bill is passed, means will be found to deal with this serious question. It is one of those complicated questions which have prevented local authorities getting down to the foundations and finding out what is wrong. When you get owners and occupiers paying rates upon rates, on the same sum of £3 12s it is ridiculous,
especially when £3 12s, of rates is borne as rent.
In the calculations made to-night by those in charge of the Bill, in regard to the paying of £2 15s., I would point out that there is a relation between what may be calculated as rent and what may be calculated as rates. If we are to take the real financial basis of rent, it is surely the cost of the erection of the house. The moment the contractor is paid and the scheme finished, then the local authority takes over all road, sewage, cleansing, etc., and they go on a definite rate. The difficulty has to be faced if we are going to get down to a real basis of rent, and, by following the course I have indicated, we come to the real question of being able to reduce the rent much more than even the provisions of this Measure, good as it is, will do.
The next point deals with finance, in regard again to rates. While sitting in a Court hearing appeals in Glasgow under the last De-rating Act, I found that there were a great many people who had difficulty about the ownership of property, and even of the site on which the property was built. Clause 24 of the Bill deals with the question of ownership. In that Court there was one case especially where factors factoring property, and also in relation to the site, had been drawing rent for years without being able to say who the owners were. When they were asked what they were doing with the accumulated rent and rates, they said that they were putting the money in the bank.
I should like to ask how Clause 24 will operate. When property comes under review for valuation within an area dealt with by this Financial Resolution, I should like to see it provided that, where the owner is unknown, the property will become either the property of the State or of the locality in which it is situated. With regard to hostels, I should like to ask whether there is going to be any special regulation, or whether they are going to be put under the direct financial control of the community in which they are; and also whether existing privately owned hostels will be recognised. We require details of matters of this kind, in order to be able to deal with them
during the Committee stage of the Bill. I would specially draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the question of the inclusion of rates as rent, especially where the owner is paying rates on rates as well as on rent.

Mr. SKELTON: I cannot agree with those who cover this Bill and the Financial Resolution with praise. Were I not a single individual in this matter, I should certainly divide the House both on the Bill and on the Resolution. It is a most inadequate Measure. It is a purely eyewash Bill, and the Financial Resolution, analysed as it has been in this Debate, makes that clear. I should not wish to leave the matter without registering my protest against the underlying humbug that there is in the whole scheme of the Bill. It is, of course, plain when one comes to the Financial Resolution. My hon. and gallant Friend the late Under-Secretary has made it clear that the additional financial assistance given by the State is fractional at best, and against that must be kept in mind the fact that all of us who have attended to this Debate and the Debate on the Second Reading, have had our minds refreshed—if I may use the word—or rather, appalled by the facts that have been brought before us again as to the appalling state of Scottish housing as compared with housing in England. Slum clearance has gone on to a larger extent in Scotland up to date than in England, but when one recollects the figures that have been given and realises how absolutely insufficient the Bill is to deal with slum clearance, and realises also the vital facts of how large a proportion of our Scottish houses in the towns can be regarded as slums, one has before one the whole picture adequately to consider the Bill, and in my view—I wish to state it with frankness, not only to the audience of this Committee but to the larger audienece of Scotland—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not know if the hon. Member was in the House yesterday when I pointed out that we cannot discuss the Bill on the Money Resolution.

Mr. SKELTON: I apologise if I used the word "Bill," but this being the essence of the Bill on the financial side, all I wish to say can be said by turn-
ing to the Money Resolution. This is, of course, a block grant. Hon. Members below the Gangway seem to kick at that phrase. My objection to the block grant in this Resolution is that hon. Members opposite have only half learnt the lesson that my hon. Friend tried to teach them last year. Their block grant is utterly inadequate. The whole essence and value of a block grant is, by getting a proper formula, to give the proper amount of money to the districts that need it most. Amongst the many admirable and suggestive speeches that have been made, none has raised the question of the inadequacy of the block grant more than a word or two thrown out by the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train). If the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary had learnt the not very difficult but important lesson which was taught them in the De-rating Bill, they would have applied the principle of the block grant to make some use of it, but they have only made nonsense of it. The proper course the Resolution should have taken would be to give the more necessitous areas sums from the Treasury which would to some extent have met the problem of slum clearance.
The extraordinary needs of Scotland have been brought more clearly to my mind by to-day's Debate than they have been for a long time. When one compares the needs with this paltry provision, one sees that the arrangements under this Resolution offer no real inducement to hard-pressed local authorities in districts which, from the slum point of view, are necessitous seriously to undertake the work of slum clearance. That is the point, after all that has been said on the platform and elsewhere, which makes the position so utterly contemptible. That is my view, and I hope that as long as I am in this House I may express my views in Parliamentary language.
There is another reason why I feel that these are matters which should not pass through this House without a Division. I cannot understand how this House can accept the proposition underlying differential rents which clearly are implied in the Financial Resolution. There is some dubiety about the matter, it is true, and I do not think that the OFFICIAL REPORT will make it clear whether differential
rents are to be part and parcel of the scheme or whether it is hoped that it will be possible to bring this about in certain circumstances. It is clear that there is no answer to the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend as far as the finance of this scheme is concerned. The only method by which you can lower the rent of "A" is by raising the rent of "B." The suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State that some other committee in a local authority may give a grant in order to prevent that from happening has nothing to do with the Bill at all. That is my sole objection to differential rents, and it is an objection so serious that a further word should be said about it even at this late hour. I cannot for the life of me see what possible excuse there is for reducing the rent of, let us say, a rather haphazard family consisting of a large number of children whose financial situation is such that they get a reduction of rent, whereas some decent pensioner or some old spinster keeping her single room, even in the slums, in spotless condition has to pay not merely the full rent of the new house, but something more to enable some squalid Irish family to batten upon cheap rents.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is very unfair.

Mr. SKELTON: To some people the truth is always unfair. Who can deny that one of the great elements in the slum problem in Scotland is the presence in our urban districts of the rural Irish Celt?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that matter comes under the Financial Resolution.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not want to enter into the merits of, or to oppose, your Ruling, but I want to say that the hon. Gentleman has made a statement reflecting on a large number of the population, and I think that it should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Mr. SKELTON: I hope that my words were not such as to give a false impression. I agree that the difficulty is that I cannot very well within the rules of Order explain them. Perhaps you will permit me to say, without calling me to order, that it is well known that one of the special difficulties of the slum problem in Scotland is the presence in our urban districts of the Celtic population
which, however admirable in rural districts, sinks as soon as you take it into the city. That is my view and I should be prepared to discuss it fully with my hon. Friend if it were a matter of order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would take you on, with pleasure.

Mr. SKELTON: The general effect of differential rents will, I am convinced, press hardly in many cases upon deserving people, who will be burdened by the differential terms given to persons who I, or any fair-minded man, would regard as less deserving people within the slum areas. As the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) said, in a brilliant speech, the differential rent produces an even more hideous anomaly when you treat it not only within the slum area but with regard to people outside the slum area, vis a vis with people inside. It is clear, in my judgment, that by making a differential rent which is applicable only to the slum clearances which are made under this Bill, you are burdening the rest of the working-class people in Scotland most unfairly, because even if their circumstances are exactly the same as those of people in a slum area, where you give a favourable rent, you give them no opportunity of having a similar abatement of their burden. Why, in this year of grace 1930, because a certain family finds itself inside an area that is going to be declared a slum area, should it have a chance of a more favourable rent than a family in similar financial circumstances outside a slum area? It seems to me to be one of the most inequitable and most foolish provisions that could be put into an Act of Parliament, and on that ground alone, and I am not using language of exaggeration, if I were judge of the matter, I would divide against this Money Resolution. I think it is an improper, an inequitable and a monstrous proposition, and neither by speech nor vote would I give it any countenance.
Further, speaking as a Unionist, as one who is not a Socialist and who has no Socialist leanings, I do not believe that the principle of differential rents is a sound one. If you could be certain that you were going to differentiate the rent in accordance with the merits of the people, and if you could be certain that you were going to have an adequate test
whereby you would not give the favourable rent to the less worthy ease, I should have less to say against the principle, but I am not satisfied, so far as the Debate has proceeded to-day, that any test sufficient to justify one citizen getting his house for a lower rent than another citizen, can be applied. I am confident that you could do nothing worse for the community than to single out upon insufficient tests, particular individuals and give them special privileges. I do not believe that that is right and I do not believe that it is sound finance. I am positive that it is unsound socially and I am equally positive that it is absolutely unsound from any standard that one might call a moral standard. These are the objections that I have to this Financial Resolution and I confess, after having listened to the Debate to-day, my opposition to this Bill and the financial methods that we are discussing, has steadily increased. I am far ess-satisfied now than I was when I read the Bill and considered the Financial Resolution, originally.

Mr. McKINLAY: Give as your constructive alternative.

Mr. SKELTON: I have tried to direct hon. Members to the point that a proper block grant to areas truly necessitous from a slum clearance point of view was a more constructive alternative, because it would induce the less richer local authorities to go on with slum clearance schemes. It is not for the hon. Member to accuse me of not giving a constructive alternative. That is the suggestion I make, and it will have to be acted upon if we are going to deal with slum clearances in Scotland. You must, have some formula and a block grant which will induce the poorer local authorities to get on with this work; and one of my main objections to this proposal is that they do not get adequate assistance under this Financial Resolution.
I am not satisfied that we are not taking a backward step, so far as rural housing is concerned, by passing this Financial Resolution. At any rate, I am perfectly certain that it can hardly be described as a step forward No subject needs more attention than that of rural housing. I do not want to say much about this because I know how easily one can exceed the Rules of Order, but in looking at this Financial Resolution I
am convinced that the Government have no adequate understanding either of the problems of rural housing or of the vital necessity to the country as a whole that rural housing should be put right as soon as possible.
It is not possible for me to answer the speech of the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) on the subject of the Rural Workers Act but his description of its failure was utterly inaccurate and most unjust to the individuals and local authorities which in the great bulk of Scottish counties are doing their best to work that Act. I thought the speech of the right hon. Member was founded on most inadequate and inaccurate information. Let me reiterate that the scheme, so far as it concerns rural housing, is inadequate. It is not worth discussing whether the fraction is in favour of the new scheme or against it. The change in the present proposal is tiny. If we are going to do anything for rural housing it must be a big advance not a microscopic movement to the front. We have not got that from the Government, nor did I expect to get it from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I repeat that I regret that the party to which I belong is passing this Financial Resolution without a Division. Only a Division can adequately show the people of Scotland how contemptible is this Financial Resolution—

Mr. BUCHANAN: What is to prevent you having one?

Mr. SKELTON: Unless the hon. Member will act as a Teller I should find it difficult to do the whole work myself.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Look at the diehards you have with you.

Mr. SKELTON: That is a matter for my judgment. Were a Division called, I should most willingly take part in it. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite need not try to ride off on that horse, because they, more than anybody else in the Committee, are, I am sure, at one with me in feeling how utterly inadequate must be the schemes for slum clearance under this Financial Resolution. For my part, I do not believe that this Financial Resolution can bring about slum clearances of nearly the same size or value as the improvements which would have been brought
about by a proper scheme of reconditioning houses in the slums, such as would have been carried into operation had we been successful at the polls at the last Election. I urge, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) did, the withdrawal of this Resolution and the substitution of a Resolution which, if it does not go the whole way in the direction I have indicated, will at all events give local authorities more assistance and more encouragement to go on with slum clearance in the towns and will more adequately realise the necessities of housing in the rural districts.

Mr. MATHERS: The words which we have heard from the other side of the House have been very strong indeed, and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) has found it necessary, in order to give point to his argument, to apply the term "utterly contemptible" to the provisions of this Financial Resolution. If he reflects, I think he will realise that, in using language of that kind about a Financial Resolution, which is admittedly a step in advance—though to him a small step—of what his Government did, he is saying in effect that the proposals of the Government to which he gave adherence were absolutely beneath contempt. It is curious to find hon. Members opposite urging the desirability of providing more money in this connection when we know that they are in fear and trembling all the time as to the proposals for the provision of necessary money which are to be disclosed next Monday. It seems to me that we are justified in saying that a great deal of the vehement opposition which is being offered to this Resolution, arises from a "sour grapes" feeling in the minds of hon. Members opposite. We have had revolutionary incitements from the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) urging us to get into the cash box while it is open, and to secure more money, but those sentiments are not quite in keeping with the record of hon. Members opposite.
The Debate has shown that, so far as Scottish housing is concerned, we are still able to express a very deep interest in financial matters. There is general agreement with regard to the principles that this Resolution carries out. We are being
asked in this Resolution to make an investment in health that is being undermined by bad housing conditions, and we are being asked to invest in sounder bodies for Scottish children. We are told on some occasions that one is not able to buy sunshine and fresh air, but that is falsified by the facts of the Scottish housing position. We are being asked in this Resolution to invest in sounder minds in Scotland, because we cannot have proper intelligence developed in bodies that are stunted by bad housing conditions; and right through the whole gamut of life, from the point of view of morals, we are being asked to make an investment that is well worth what we are being asked to pay.
Again, in respect of civic and national pride, this Resolution asks us to make a real investment. Some of us are very proud of the part of the country from which we come and of the cities in which we live. I think that pride is especially pardonable in my own case in respect of the City of Edinburgh, and yet we know that behind the glory and the beauty of that city there are what might be described as festering sores. We want to be proud of the places from which we come, and we want to be able not only to show the fine places, the beauties of architecture and of natural situation, but we want to be able to show, to those who come to our cities, everything that is in those cities and to feel that there is nothing in them of which we need be ashamed. This Bill and this Financial Resolution will give us the opportunity of making an investment along these lines.
With regard to the contention that there is no inducement here to the local authorities to make a real improvement in respect of Scottish housing, it has been authoritatively stated to-day that it will be better financially for the local authorities to go in for providing the bigger type of houses, houses of three and four rooms, than to cling to the older and less satisfactory type of houses with small accommodation. There is there quite definitely an inducement to the local authorities to go in for better houses and to remove, to a very considerable extent, the stigma that rests upon Scotland to-day, that perhaps the most highly intelligent country in the
world has been content up to the present to have its citizens housed in, the worst conditions that are known in any civilised country.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been blamed for having urged that, while the cash box is open, we should see that the Secretary of State gets more out of it. Really, it do not think anyone ought to blame us Scotsmen for doing that, and I am sure the country will be very pleased that we should take that line, but I want to be quite sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland and those in charge of Scottish affairs are going to get out of the cash box what they think they are going to get. I have only one question to ask in regard to the wording of this Financial Resolution. In paragraph (1, a) it says:
for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Department, been rendered available in new houses.
I want to know what is meant by the words "new houses"? Does that entirely depend on the new houses which are built by the authorities? It seems to me that you might have a case where people are moved from a slum area into new houses built by private enterprise. They would be new houses, and would conform to this paragraph, but would it be possible for them to claim this £2 10s. or £2 15s.? Therefore, I should like to know that this Financial Resolution expresses what the Government really means. It is a very important point, because, unless they get this grant from the Treasury, they will not be able to prepare their schemes. The more money they get from the Treasury, the greater will be the reduction that they will be able to make. I wish we could persuade the Government to withdraw this Financial Resolution and introduce another giving some assistance in regard to reconditioned houses, and enabling the authorities to put their people out of the slums into these reconditioned houses. In Edinburgh, for instance, there are many houses which might be regarded as slums, but which are old buildings and which could be reconditioned and used for the housing of the people. Outside they would retain their old beauty. Most of them are wonderfully built, and have been standing for centuries, and will probably stand for another century, and it seems to me a pity that the only in-
ducement given to the authorities is to pull them down. I would ask whether some assistance could not be given to recondition them. I should like to have some reply to the question of what is meant by the phrase "new houses," because it seems to me it does not necessarily mean houses built by local authorities. It only says:
for whom accommodation has, with the approval of the Department, been rendered available in new houses.

Mr. McKINLAY: I had not intended to intervene at all, but the Government have been urged to withdraw this Resolution, and, judging from the remarks which fell from hon. Members opposite, I am sure the Government would be well advised to withdraw it, and introduce another substituting 100 per cent. of the cost of slum clearances as the amount to come from the national Exchequer. I want to ask a question with reference to paragraph (b, ii) which says:
The purchase price or compensation paid in respect of the acquisition of the remainder of the said dwelling houses or other premises.
What is meant by "other premises"? I have a recollection that in the English Financial Resolution there is a, specific reference to the question of compensation to licence holders who are displaced because of clearances. I want to be perfectly clear, and to ask whether a portion of the sum allocated for clearance schemes will find its way into the coffers of the traffic which does as much to create slums as any other traffic I know. I want the interests of the taxpayer to be safeguarded, but the Motion is not specific about this. This traffic have funds from which they pay compensation, and as the licences are held on only a 12 months' permit from the local authorities, the lapsing of such a licence should not be a charge upon this Money Resolution. On line 46 of the Motion appear the words:
annual contributions towards the provision of hostels to meet the needs of single persons.
What exactly is meant by the word "hostels"? In the City of Glasgow we have places that assume the respectful designation of hostel, but which in reality are nothing more nor less than model lodging houses. I want to be assured that no part of the proceeds of this Money Resolution can be diverted for the purpose of creating glorified model lodging houses in any area in
Scotland. I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would give me an assurance on these two points.

The CHAIRMAN: Those are matters for the Committee stage of the Bill.

Major DUDGEON: Before the Report stage of the Money Resolution, I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider two particular points. The contribution to be given by the counties towards the new houses will amount to £4 1s. 7d. per year per house over a period of 60 years. This may not appear to be a very large sum, but, as a member of a county local authority, I can assure my right hon. Friend that at this moment it is difficult to get county councils to embark upon new responsibilities, firstly, because they receive no Treasury grant towards that new responsibility, and, secondly, because owing to the Derating Act of last year, their assessable value has been so greatly reduced. If we are to have progress in dealing with individual slums in the counties—and they are a serious and widespread evil in Scotland—the contributions from the county councils will have to be even smaller than the £4 1s. 7d. per house.
The next point about which I am uneasy, is the contribution per person for these new housing schemes. We are transferring the whole basis of grants from the house to the individual. I am inclined to think that both elements should have been brought into play in a new formula, and a certain amount of the grant given for the house, and a certain amount for the individual. In a number of small burghs in Scotland the present position is that Where they schedule an area—

The CHAIRMAN: That also is a Committee point, and if the hon. Gentleman can get it into the Bill, well and good.

Major DUDGEON: I am raising the point about financial contributions. If the Government contribute in these areas on the basis of four persons per house, it may be all right, but they 11.0 p.m. may contribute on the basis of only two or less. I raise this point because local authorities have co-operated to a certain extent to get the most overcrowded houses demolished in the smaller areas; people have moved out of those areas into new houses, and
in many cases it will be found that the population does not amount to even three persons per house. Therefore, the contribution under this Resolution may not be sufficient and may require further consideration.

Mr. JOHNSTON: At this time of night and after having sat here for seven hours, I really despair of being able to give every hon. Member who has raised an abstruse and difficult point the satisfaction which I might have attempted to give him at an earlier stage of the evening. I will endeavour to do my best, however, though I must tell hon. Members that many of the points raised would be more suitable for the Committee stage. The hon. Member who spoke last referred again to the effect of the charge of £4 1s. 7d. per annum falling upon rural areas and spoke of it impoverishing them; but has he figured out what is the cost to a local authority of disease, the cost of the maintenance of a hospital, the cost of an outbreak of some infectious disease? If he will consider the matter further, he will see that the £4 1s. 7d. is not a dead loss to the local authority. They may gain from the increased valuation resulting from the wiping out of slums and the creation of new property. All these factors must be considered by the hon. Member and his friends in the county districts when making up their minds as to how far they can operate the provisions of this Act.
The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) asked whether a local authority purchasing a slum area which included a licensed house would be compelled to buy out the licensed house, or were there other means of dealing with it. That would depend on the local authority. In the area in which I live, there would be no necessity to buy out the licensed house, because we should have voted it out; but I should imagine that a local authority would transfer the public house to some other area, and not pay compensation for it. But that is a matter for the decision of the local authority. Then he inquired about hostels. What we have in mind is this. In a city like Dundee there are considerable numbers of single women earning their livelihood in the mills. They do not want a three-room kitchen
house, or even a two-room kitchen house. What they want is their own apartment, their own privacy, and decent sanitary conveniences of their own; possibly, also, a common dining room. That is what we have in mind when we use the word "hostel." In view of the backing which the idea has had from housing reformers of late years, I should think that is a part of the Bill which would be adopted unanimously.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. R. W. Smith) raised a legal point to which I do not care to give an answer, but I cannot conceive of private enterprise building houses and letting them at normal rents unless they ha J a subsidy from the local authority, and that is not a form of house building which the present Government is desirous of encouraging. If possible, we want local authorities to do their own building and own the houses. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) talked about our proposals being contemptible and all the rest of it, but I would like tc remind him that the principle of differential rents is nothing new. The Wheatley plan included differential rents, and so did the Chamberlain plan. The idea of a differential rent was enshrined in a Conservative Act of Parliament, and therefore the language which the hon. Member for Perth has used seems to me to be singularly inappropriate to the occasion. When the hon. Member said that this Bill means nothing to local authorities in dealing with the question of slum clearances, I can only say that I have in my possession a letter from possibly one of the greatest housing experts in Scotland, Sir William Whyte, of Lanarkshire, saying that he was highly delighted with the Bill, and no man has devoted more attention to housing in impoverished areas than this gentleman.
I come to the question which has been raised by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), who seems to be under some apprehension lest the provisions of the Bill will deter local authorities for some years from proceeding with alterations under the Rural Housing Act. I think I can give her an assurance on that point. In the first place, the Act of 1925, to which she has referred, still remains on the Statute Book, and by Clause 3 of
that Act the same power that we take in this Bill is to be found in that Act. The powers which she apprehends in this Resolution as likely to deter local authorities from operating the Rural Housing Act are already the law of the land.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that local authorities can serve an order on an owner for necessary repairs, but, if reconstruction be necessary, then there is no power to make a closing order, and, therefore, the powers are not so wide as under Clause 11?

The CHAIRMAN: This has nothing to do with the Financial Resolution.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With respect, I would submit that it affects the Money Resolution to this extent, that, if the Noble Lady be correct, then certain financial commitments which may be involved in the Financial Resolution will not be required at all. However, I will obey your Ruling and will only call the Noble Lady's attention to the succeeding paragraph, where reference is made to the closing order, that it "shall be deemed to have become operative," and, therefore, what she is afraid of is the law of the land. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), in a rather humorous passage in his speech, said "The Treasury is open; now is the time. The Secretary of State for Scotland can go and lift whatever money he likes." I think it is a joke now at the Treasury that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he sees us—and we go regularly for money—when he sees the two of us coming orders the cat's milk to be taken in. If my predecessor in office can give us any hints as to how to get more money, I hope that he will not keep the hints to himself. We shall be glad to have them. He put certain questions relating to the precise amount of our grant under this Bill, and he used figures in regard to the Calton housing scheme. I do not know how far his estimate of the families to be moved out, for example, are accurate. Therefore, he will not expect me to answer that point, but we have had averages taken, and we can deal only with averages in a matter of this kind. I will give them. If we take the burghs in industrial areas—I am leaving out rural areas altogether—then in a three-apartment house, if the local authority
gave a subsidy of £4 1s. 7d. per annum, not £4 10s., there would be no lose whatever to the local authority, if the rent was £14. If there should be four-apartment houses in the scheme, then the grant would be bigger. The local authority would then, on those four-apartment houses, make a profit of £3 7s. 9d. There is the further point that if there were four-apartment houses in the local authority's scheme the loss to the local authority would be reduced. While it is true that, if the proportion of two-apartment houses be high, there is no gain to the local authorities, if the proportion of three-apartment houses be high there is a considerable gain, and if there be any four-apartment houses in the area the local authority will do very well. To-day the local authority, under a slum clearance scheme, gets £8 10s. from the local rates on an average. There is an average loss of £17 per annum on slum clearance schemes now. The local authority bears half, namely, £8 10s., and the State bears half. Under this Bill the local authority is not going to bear that loss of £8 10s. The subsidy on two-apartment houses—we call them three-unit houses—is £2 10s. per unit, or £7 10s., which would represent a loss to the local authority of £1 if all the houses were two-roomed horses, as compared with the present rate; hut if they are three-roomed houses, the grant is £11 5s., and if they are four-roomed houses the grant is £15, as against the present grant of £8 10s.

Major ELLIOT: Those are all equated to 60 years?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes; they are comparable. To-day the average cost to the local authority is £8 10s. When this Bill passes, if the houses are four-apartment houses, the local authority will get a grant of £15, as against £8 10s. to-day. If they are three-apartment houses, the local authority will get £11 5s., as against £8 10s. to-day; but it is true that, if the houses are two-apartment houses, the grant will only be £7 10s. If however, an average be struck, it is certainly the case that the local authority will be considerably better off than it is to-day. If, for example, 75 per cent. of the houses in a scheme are at least three-apartment houses, the proportion of the loss borne by the
National Treasury is 66⅔ per cent., and not 50 per cent. as it is to-day. I submit that that is a considerable benefit to a local authority which sets out to operate the provisions of this Measure.
I trust that I have met the important points which have been raised by hon. Members, and which were within the terms of the Financial Resolution, but I would say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that we shall welcome criticism and advice and assistance during the further progress of the Measure. We recognise the appalling magnitude of the problem with which we have to deal. We recognise that the lives of thousands of people in this generation are at stake, and we submit, while quite convinced that we have not solved all the social problems by this Bill—and no one Bill will ever solve them all—that we are definitely making an attempt to tackle a part of them. If we can carry the Bill, thousands of children at any rate in this generation will get a chance of life that they otherwise would not have, and the House will have deserved some thanks from the people of Scotland for the Measure which I now commend to the Committee.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — THIRD PARTIES (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1. —(Rights of third parties against survivors or bankruptcy, &c., of the insured.)

Dr. BURGIN: I beg leave to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "the company commencing to be wound up" and to insert instead thereof the words
a winding-up order being made, or a resolution for a voluntary winding-up being passed, with respect to the company.
This is a Bill the short purport of which is to deal with the possibility of an insured person becoming bankrupt and being deprived of the result of the insurance and to the insurance money passing under the general bankruptcy of the debtor amongst the creditors as
a whole. The object of the Bill is to provide a direct right of action by the victim of an accident against the insurance company. It is reasonable, whenever you have a Bill dealing with insurance to endeavour to place an individual and a limited company upon the same footing. An individual is susceptible of being made bankrupt. A company, on the other hand, has to be wound up. The first Clause provides, in the case of an insured person, that the operative moment for the Bill to have effect is when the insured becomes bankrupt. Becoming bankrupt, in the language of the law, means an actual order of adjudication. It is quite different from the presentation of a, petition, which must subsequently be admitted or be paid off or be adjourned, or abandoned. These things must happen. On the other hand. when you deal with a company you present a petition which is largely and widely advertised. Under the Companies Act the commencement of winding-up of a company is the actual date of the presentation of the petition.
The object of my Amendment is to say that in the case of the company, as in the case of the individual, that you should wait until an actual bankruptcy, and so it is provided that in the case of an individual the moment should be "becoming bankrupt," and in the case of a company, not the presentation of the petition, which is a, vicious and artificial method of calculating, but the winding-up order actually being made, or the resolutions for a voluntary winding-up being passed, The Amendment has the effect merely of placing a limited company on exactly the same footing as an individual, and, as the House is well aware, by far the largest proportion of actual insurances are effected with companies and not with individual persons. This amendment is one of substance and one which may be said to be required for purposes of symmetry to bring the insurance company and the insured individual into line.

Viscount ELMLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENIERAL (Sir James Melville): I have had a long preliminary opportunity of considering this Amendment. In my view, it is a reasonable one and makes the Bill more sym-
metrical and brings the limited company's position into line with that of the ordinary individual and I would advise the House to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Duty to give necessary information to third parties.)

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the words "any company commencing to be wound up," and to insert instead thereof the words:
a winding-up order being made, or a resolution for a voluntary winding-up being passed, with respect to the company.
This Amendment is purely consequential and covers precisely the same point as the earlier Amendment.

Viscount ELMLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, after the word "property" to insert the words:
or any insurance company concerned in any contract to which this Act applies.
The Bill, as has already been explained by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin), does not deal with the general law and will affect relatively a very small number of persons. It will only be effective in the case of bankruptcies and winding-up orders, and, therefore, the number of cases with which the Bill is concerned will be very limited indeed. But, in view of the fact that we are now considering the extension of the general principle of compulsory third-party insurance in relation to the Road Traffic Bill, I think that the principle which I desire to lay before the House has assumed a more important character.
I am concerned with the poor person, the ordinary pedestrian who is knocked down by a motor car and injured. In the majority of cases this person would not be likely to be insured. He would therefore not have the assistance of expert legal advice unless he was in a position to pay for it. It is entirely with that type of person that I am concerned in the Amendment. In Clause 2, certain obligations are put upon a number of persons who may be concerned with a bankruptcy. Clause 2 says:
it shall be the duty of the bankrupt, debtor, personal representative of the deceased debtor or company, and, as the case
may be, of the trustee in bankruptcy, trustee, liquidator, receiver, or manager, or person in possession of the property to give at the request of any person claiming that the bankrupt, debtor, deceased debtor, or company is under a liability to him.
certain information or any relevant facts that may be in their possession, in order to enable that person to determine whether or not he has a rightful and proper claim against the insurance company. The most important interest in relation to the claim of the injured person, namely, the insurance company, are completely left out of this clause. There is no obligation laid upon the insurance company, which is the vital factor in determining whether the injured person shall or shall not receive compensation. We all know the various devices to which insurance companies resort when there is any substantial claim made upon them for injury, especially when it happens to be an injury to a poor person who cannot reasonably be expected to be in a position to pursue them to the High Court, in the event of prolonged litigation.
The Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of compelling an insurance company to disclose to the injured person who had a claim under this Act, all the relevant facts in their possession. Those relevant facts would include the policy and, what is equally important, the proposal form. It is well known that the Substance of the Contract as between the insurance company and the assured is the truth or otherwise of the statement made upon the proposal form. In a recent case in which I was concerned, and of which I had personal knowledge, it was alleged by the insurance company as a reason for repudiating liability that certain false representations had been made upon the proposal form and that, therefore, the contract as between the assured and themselves was not valid. Imagine the position in which a poor person is placed. If he takes the insurance company into the Court, they can be compelled to disclose the proposal form and all the relevant facts which they have in their possession, but my point is that the insurance company will not, under this Bill or this clause, be compelled to disclose all these material facts to the injured person having a claim under the Bill, until he takes them into Court. The prospect of expensive litigation and the possibility of an appeal is not the kind of thing that a poor per-
son can view with equanimity. As this Clause proposes to lay definite responsibility upon everybody else other than the insurance company, the Solicitor-General might consider with sympathy whether it is not possible for him to accept my Amendment or some Amendment which would effect the same purpose.
I regard it as of great importance that the injured poor person should have the right to demand from the insurance company, before they resort to the expensive and uncertain processes of the law, all the relative facts disclosed to them in order to enable them to make up their minds as to whether they have a substantial claim or not.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: When it was introduced this Bill was in rather a skeleton form, but with the co-operation of Members of the Committee we built it up and by adding the Clause to which the hon. Member has referred we impose a duty on the person who has done the injury to give the necessary information to the third party. I quite agree with the hon. Member that we might have gone a step further in Committee and imposed a similar duty on the insurance company themselves. I have drafted an Amendment which I think will meet his desires. It is to insert in the Clause the words:
If the information given to any person in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section discloses reasonable ground for supposing that there have or may have been transferred to him under this Act rights against any particular insurer, that insurer shall be subject to the same duty as is imposed by the said sub-section on the persons therein mentioned.
His Amendment is rather too wide. The words:
any insurance company concerned in any contract.
are very wide indeed, and numbers of insurance companies who might possibly be concerned might be pestered with requests for information very often by people who may be seeking to raise speculative claims, and, as the Amendment stands, a solicitor acting for an injured person might be held to have been negligent if he did not communicate with every possible company concerned in the matter. If the hon. Member will agree,
and if the House approves, I would ask him to accept the words of my Amendment. I can assure him that I have given the matter careful consideration and I am satisfied that these words bring about the effect he desires whilst at the same time confirming the requirements to more reasonable limits.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member for his reply. May I ask him this specific question. Under his proposal, w ill it be the duty of an insurance company in the event of a person having a claim, transferred by reason of a bankruptcy, to disclose the terms of the proposal form? Will it be the duty of the insurance company to give that person the opportunity of taking a copy of the proposal form? If the Amendment of the Solicitor-General achieves that purpose, I shall be very glad to withdraw my Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In view of the Amendment which stands further down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin)—in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert:
(2) The duty to give information imposed by this section shall include a duty to allow all contracts of insurance, receipts for premiums, and other relevant documents in the possession or power of the person on whom the duty is so imposed to be inspected and copies thereof to be taken.
and assuming that the House accepts that Amendment, I have very little hesitation in saying that in ordinary circumstances, that would be one of the matters upon which a person who had been injured could reasonably ask the insurance company to give information.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made:

In page 3, line 30, at the end, insert the words:
(2) If the information given to any person in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section discloses reasonable around for supposing that there have or may have been transferred to him under this is Act rights against any particular insurer, that insurer shall he subject to the same hay as is imposed by the said sub-section on the persons therein mentioned."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) The duty to give information imposed by this section shall include a duty
to allow all contracts of insurance, receipts for premiums, and other relevant documents in the possession or power of the person on whom the duty is so imposed to be inspected and copies thereof to he taken.
The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), in the Amendment which has been withdrawn, had in mind precisely the same point as that which is dealt with here and it has engaged the attention of those of us who, in Committee and since, have been endeavouring to make this Bill a, workable piece of legislation. But the width of the hon. Member's wording frightened some of us. The words "any insurance company concerned" would, literally have included every contract of reinsurance and a person injured in an accident would have no means of finding out about contracts of reinsurance which might have been entered into by the insurance company, insuring the person responsible for the accident. Those of us who have experience on the legal side of the consequences of those accidents, know that a duty to give information is an insufficient protection. If you write to an insurance company and ask "Is so and so insured?" you are entitled to the monosyllabic answer "Yes" and that would be "giving information." Therefore this Amendment seeks to provide expressly that the duty to give information imposed by this Clause shall include the duty of allowing all contracts of insurance—and I may remind the House that a contract consists invariably of offer and acceptance and that any contract of insurance means the proposal form and the policy—receipts for premiums and other relevant documents in the possession or power of the person on whom the duty is imposed to be inspected and copies thereof taken. I can think of no wider words and they meet, in express terms, the point of the hon. Member for Lincoln. I am confirmed by expert opinion in the view that the Amendment covers completely the points which we desire to have covered.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to thank my hon. Friend for the assistance he has given in finding a solution of the difficulty which I had in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Settlement between insurers and insured persons.)

Dr. BURGIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, to leave out the words "No settlement or," and to insert thereof the words:
Where the insured has become bankrupt or where, in the case of the insured being a company, a winding-up order has been made or a resolution for a voluntary winding-up has been passed, with respect to the company, no.
This Amendment is to be taken in conjunction with the two next Amendments on the Paper which are consequential—in page 3, line 34, to leave out the words "of the insured," and to insert instead thereof the words
or winding-up, as the case may be, nor any waiver, assignment, or other disposition made by, or payment made to the insured after the commencement of aforesaid.
and in page 3, line 35, to leave out from the word "rights," to the end of line 37, and to insert instead thereof the words
transferred to the third party under this Act, but those rights shall be the same as if no such agreement, waiver, assignment, disposition, or payment had been made.
The point of these Amendments is entirely different from that which we have been discussing. The effect of the Amendments, in substance, is to provide that once an event has happened which results in a liability attaching, the rights given by this Measure shall not be taken away by any agreement that may have been made between the insurer and the insured, by any waiver, by any assignment, by any disposition or by any payment. It occurred to those of us who were concerned with this Bill that if it was proved that the victim of an accident should have a claim direct against art insurance company, it might be possible to find that the insured person and the insurance company had put their heads together and that the insured person had offered to discharge the company from liability if they paid him a relatively small sum. It occurred to us that there might be a waiver and that a person might waive all rights against an insurance company in return for some consideration. It occurred to us that we had to legislate to prevent rights given by this Measure being taken away from the person injured by some agreement between the insured and the insurance
company. These Amendments have been carefully considered and carefully drafted and I give the House the assurance, which I have no doubt will be echoed by the Solicitor General that in the considered view of those who have been helping to make this Bill an effective Measure these words are necessary to protect the victims of accidents, that they have the effect of doing so and that they are not injurious to any legitimate legal interest.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This also is a Clause upon which we had an understanding that it would be considered fully before the Report stage. I think the House will be well advised to accept these Amendments in the terms in which they have been put by my hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 34, leave out the words "of the insured," and insert instead thereof the words:
or winding up, as the case may be, nor any waiver, assignment, or other disposition made by, or payment made to the insured after the commencement aforesaid.

In line 35, leave out from the word "rights," to the end of line 37, and insert instead thereof the words:
transferred to the third party under this Act, but those rights shall be the same as if no such agreement, waiver, assignment, disposition, or payment had been made."—[Dr. Burgin.]

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE [GUARAN TEES].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1929, by extending to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the period within which new guarantees may be given under those Acts in connection with export transactions, and by extending to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty, the period during which guarantees so given may remain in force.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Gillett, Mr.
William Graham, and Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.

"to extend the periods during which guarantees may, respectively, be given and remain in force under the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920, to 1929," presented accordingly, and the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow. and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

Orders of the Day — NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th April.] "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Commander SOUTHBY: I must plead ignorance of the fact that His Majesty's sailors and marines laboured under so many disabilities as this Bill would appear to show. There must have been some reason for them, although I am ignorant of it and have never heard any complaint about them, while I was in the Service. The House would like to know something more about these disabilities.

Major LLEWELLIN: In my view, the Government, in this Bill, might well have repealed the whole of the Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1865. On what ground has the hon. Gentleman retained Section 5, which provides that a will made by a seaman or marine is not valid to pass any wages, prize money, bounty money or other money payable by the Admiralty or any effects or money in charge of the Admiralty unless it is made in accordance with English law. No such disability rests either upon the officers or the warrant officers of the Navy. Why should it rest upon our seamen and marines? They are entitled to these wages, which should be paid to them. What happens to those wages payable by the Admiralty? It seems to me that the seamen and marines should be put on the same footing as the officers and warrant officers. These provisions may have been quite proper in 1865, but why are they retained now? In this Section, the words which are to be altered are—
Persons not being soldiers in actual military service or mariners or seamen at sea,
and he is going to substitute—
persons to whom Section eleven of the Wills Act, 1837, as amended by any subsequent enactment, does not apply.
If one looks at the last Act, one finds exactly the same words as are here in Section 5, and, if one looks at the only other Act, the Soldiers and Sailors Wills Act, 1918, one finds that there is very little alteration in that Measure. I know that in the explanatory Memorandum of this Bill it is said that a reprint incorporating the Amendments made by the Bill will be issued by the Admiralty for use in the Service, and I ask the hon. Gentleman not to give the men just a bald statement referring them back to the Act of 1837, which very few of them will have facilities to acquire, but to explain to them what the Act of 1837, as altered by the Act of 1918, actually means in common English, and not in the English of the lawyers. The third point on which I should like to have an answer is why Section 6 of the Act of 1865 is still necessary, because that says:
Notwithstarding anything in this Act or any other Act, a will made after the commencement of this Act by a seaman or marine while he is a prisoner of war shall be valid for all purposes if made in conformity with the following provisions.
In the Act of 1865 these provisions are not alternatives; the three provisions are just set out, and, as a matter of fact, they are contradictory. One is that it shall be in accordance with English law; another is that it shall be in accordance with the law of the country in which it is made; and the third is that it must he acknowledged by a witness, who must be either a commissioned officer, or a warrant officer of the Navy. Why is this Section still necessary in the case of sailors or marines, when it is not necessary in the case of soldiers or airmen? It is, I think, quite settled law that a soldier or airman is on active service if he is a prisoner of war and if a man is on active service, he need not make a written will at all. He can make an oral will, and, if properly proved in the Courts, it will pass all his belongings just as well as a written will. If the hon. Gentleman is repealing practically the whole of the Act of 1865, is he leaving these two Sections? He is repealing Section 7, which is the one Section which allows the Admiralty, in the case of no will having been made in accordance with this Act,
to pay any wages due. If the hon. Gentleman is leaving any Sections of this Act at all, he ought to leave one which gives the Admiralty the right to pay to the relatives of a man what is due to him. If the hon. Gentleman keeps in the original sections of this Act he certainly ought to retain Section 7. Those are the four points on which I would like the hon. Member to give me a reply.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The short point is that the Act of 1865 requires a testamentary declaration to be made by men in the Royal Navy and in the Marines such as is not required of other citizens. That arose 12 m. out of the old time feeling, for which there may have been some justification, that sailors required additional protection in these matters. It was felt that they were open to certain influences, and that they might be made the subject of fraud, and therefore these requirements were laid down. With the spread of education and with the different type of men we now get in the Navy it is felt that this protection is no longer necessary and it is proposed that they should he placed on all fours with other members of the community; in future it will not be necessary for them always to have their wills attested by an officer or some other qualified person, but other witnesses may act. As to the position of officers, it was felt at the time that they were not in need of the same protection as the men, and no special requirements were laid down in their case. The hon. Member also raised the point of why it was necessary to alter the words which are in Section 11 of the Act of 1837. We are doing that on the recommendation of our legal advisers, who say that it is far better that the wording should be amended. Regarding his further point relating to Section 6, we retain that because certain relaxations may be necessary in the case of prisoners of war, who may not be in a position to get the requisite persons to sign their testamentary declarations although one responsible person may be available. The wills of men who die after the passing of this Act will come under it. The position will not be worse on this account. As regards Section 7, I am advised that there is not much point in its retention. We are concerned with
removing those provisions of the old Act which bear hardly on seamen and marines and place them at a disadvantage as compared with other citizens. There is no more in it than that. In order that the men should know how they are affected, form F 545 will be issued to give them the necessary guidance. They can fill it up and will be safeguarded as regards their testamentary declarations.

Major LLEWELLIN: By the change which is now suggested it seems to me that it is not so clear what is meant when you refer the marines and the sailors back to another Act of Parliament. I hope they will be given a clear explanation of what is meant. If it is thought necessary in the case of seamen and marines, not in the case of their private property, but only in relation to money payable by the Admiralty, to have the
will in a certain form, it seems to me that some further consideration should be given to the necessity of leaving, in Section 7 under which the Admiralty can waive these formalities.

Mr. AMMON: The form has been prepared in a way which makes the position quite clear.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.